Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/76.31.249.221/Archive

23 December 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

23 December 2014
Multiple accounts in cross-talk and suspected sockpuppets

18:31, 18 December 2014‎ 76.31.249.221 (talk)‎. . (8,148 bytes) (+1,357)‎

06:29, 19 December 2014‎ 2601:e:2000:1a3:e998:1d86:9381:9ec1 (talk)‎. . (8,176 bytes) (+28)‎. . (→‎Plot)

06:29, 19 Decmber 2014 Moxy (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * and multiple dynamically changing IP-addresses over a large range of accounts.

This dynamically changing IP address and others had been involved in disruptive editing and forum shopping multiple ANI pages with many personal attacks. User:EdJohnston then identified several WP:Sock accounts for this WP:SPA. After being confronted, then the IP-editor seemed to partially admit to editing from multiple accounts with a dismissive excuse for doing so, and has not responded to multiple invitations to open a regular user account from various editors. The rapid filing of multiple ANI pages by forum shopping and the SPA nature of this IP-editor suggests that this is not someone new to Wikipedia or its filing (with diffs) processes on multiple noticeboards. I have requested an informal Checkuser from an administrator, who may be backlogged and has not yet answered after 24 hours. The comment by User:EdJohnston reads as follows;


 * The article is now fully protected one week by User:CambridgeBayWeather. The anonymous editor seems to have used three different IPs in the edit war since 11 December (one IPv4 and two IPv6s).  This article was also submitted in a 3RR complaint on 18 December. Continuing to file the same issue at multiple venues is called forum shopping. Each time gets the same advice: use the talk page to get agreement. Use WP:DR if you are stuck. EdJohnston (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Recently I tried to restore the low page-count article Metropolitan (1990 film) to the previous Plot summary from last month which looked more stable and less biased, when this dynamically changing IP-editor started altering the text without Talk page discussion. My revert was made following WP:BRD rules in order to allow Talk and discussion, which the IP-editor rejected on the edit history comment field dismissively in response. I then continued to receive back-to-back responses from multiple IP-accounts and one registered account regarding this relatively low traffic page. May I request a check on the multiple accounts listed on this diff. The long IP-account number in this list also comes across with a wide range of variations. The fact that this is an WP:SPA who already admitted to using multiple IP-addresses to influence outcomes should be addressed promptly, while the larger issue of why the SPA has made this a special issue suggests that another editor with a regular account may also be involved. FelixRosch  ( TALK ) 20:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * What we need here is for FelixRosch (and the IP's)  to engage eachother about content over who did what first. Does not help anyone that people are running off trying to get the other introuble in place after place. I am assuming me being pinged here (named here) is a mistake...as I have never edited the page inquestion and edit from Canada not Texas as the Ip's do.  --  Moxy (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Oops, I misread the report originally. First time for this issue was at [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive266#User:FelixRosch_reported_by_User:76.31.249.221_.28Result:_No_violation.29 WP:AN3], then at WP:ANI and now here. I originally advised that editors should have a content-based discussion on the article talk page. I don't think User:FelixRosch should bother to bring this here. The report should be closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. While there might need to be something sorted out, it's certainly not sockpuppetry. Mike V  •  Talk  17:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)