Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/82.76.72.117/Archive

20 April 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Original IP address was blocked approximately 24 hours ago by admin Doc James for repeatedly violating policies such as WP:NPA and for edit warring. Proof of personal attacks launched on my talk page in the form of diffs can be found here, here (edit warring to keep personal attack on talk page) , and here (once again edit warring attack comment back in . IP editor launched these attacks after disagreeing with an edit on Salvia hispanica and wholesale reverting it with no explanation except for a profane edit summary seen here . I undid this due to the lack of explanation (the uncivil nature of the edit summary did not help this IP user's case). Original IP user also attempted to threaten me by outing the disagreement to the Wikipedia public and stated that I'm Fuc*ed (see here: ). After that, IP user was blocked for three months. Within 24 hours, new IP user returns to the salvia hispanica page and the blocked IP user's page and resumed personal attacks and demonstrates classic signs of socking such as WP:REPEATING, WP:IDENTICAL, and WP:SIM here with the same style of rude remarks in the edit summary aimed at me, here , and here. New comments by the suspected sock were also noted to be uncivil by another user as seen here on the left of this diff and in this edit summary. This is clearly a case of circumventing the block and the evidence linking this new IP address to the old one should be considered compelling given the extremely similar editing styles, the immediate return to the same page as well as the blocked IP address's talk page (with no other articles edited), and the same edit warring behavior. I believe this user's behavior is highly similar to that of the now blocked 82 IP address and that the establishment of this new IP user represents an attempt to circumvent the three month block put it place and deserves an indefinite block. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also made nasty attacks against me. Needs a block, with extensions of the blocks of both IPs for the block evasion. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough about the inability to do a permanent block on an IP address but I'm glad to hear we're all in agreement that this is a pretty clear cut case of a disruptive sock. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * More suspected sockpuppets




 * All are blocked. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Hello! see comment from 5.12.155.176 here 5.12.155.176 (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
. Am is needed to block. Indeffinite blocks against IPs are not allowed, but a temporary block is appropriate.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  15:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the IP for a month for block evasion. Mike V • Talk 18:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)