Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/93.36.6.165/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

ItaloCelt84 (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC) 
 * I can provide evidence of a possible connection to Xoil. He abruptly stopped editing on November 1st, and has not made any edits since then, while at the same time, both the IPs mentioned above just started to perform editing, and only on the Corsicans and Sardinians articles. Furthermore, the IPs above specifically changed right when the one was going to violate WP:3RR. It was a deliberate change to avoid violating that rule. I think there should be at least a warning placed on those respective pages about their negative edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItaloCelt84 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The IPs mentioned are very likely associated with User:Xoil. Apparently, another editor has also stated that this has been a persistent problem with similar IPs of this user for quite some time now. In any case, those IPs should be warned about their violation of 3RR as much as I should, and was. I apologize for making one too many edits. I thought the maximum of reverts allowed was 3 in a 24-hour period, and I don`t think I went over that on the Sardinians article. ItaloCelt84 (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not want to point fingers, but I find the edits of User:Xoil to be not much different than the two IP's. Xoil also did not put up much of a defence against this accusation: . In any case, apart from a check user, I have no way to prove a connection beyond a reasonable doubt. ItaloCelt84 (talk) 11:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It is curious to note that Xoil edits almost the the exact same articles as the IP's did, and only those articles. Furthermore, the actions of those IP's also have curiously and suddenly ceased while Xoil has suddenly started editing again after not editing since November 1st. It's quite a coincidence that his sudden break in editing (Nov. 1 to Nov 5) corresponds exactly with the start in editing of the IP's (Nov. 4)  . Apparently, this behaviour has also been noted in the past in these articles previously by another user:  ItaloCelt84 (talk) 11:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * No, i'm not that IP user. Administrators are free to investigate--Xoil (talk) 10:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not put up much of a defence against this accusation because simply i have nothing to be afraid of, i repeat, Administrators are free to investigate--Xoil (talk) 11:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know of what you're talking about, i edit wikipedia since 2008 and i've created dozens of pages of different subjcets (hundreds in italian wiki). I have another account but i don't use it since years (i would close it if possible)--Xoil (talk) 11:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The duration of your time on Wiki is not a valid argument against suspected sockpuppetry. The IP's in question started editing at around the exact same time that you suddenly stopped editing, between Nov.1 to Nov.5. They edited almost the exact same articles you did, and made the exact same style of edit summary comments as you did on Corsicans and Sardinians, making some similar reverts to specific content that you had done so previously in those respective articles. I requested a check user on you and the IP's but was apparently declined. ItaloCelt84 (talk) 11:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you understand that i was simply offline? i do not work for Wikipedia, it's just an hobby, the fact that the Ip edits coincided with my absence is just a coincidence!--Xoil (talk) 12:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I am unsure who the master sock is of the IP's, and you are probably right that it is just a coincidence. If you assert this is the case, then I apologize. Mi dispiace ! I hope we can co-operate to revert and stop the vandalizing edits by the IP's when the page is unprotected from editing. ItaloCelt84 (talk) 12:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, no problem, pace! The IP is from Lombardy (it seems) and he's connected trought Fastweb (telecommunications company), i have another Internet service provider --Xoil (talk) 13:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * CheckUser is : the tool cannot be used to compare IPs to named accounts for privacy reasons. No evidence was provided at all for Xoil, and it seems to be pretty clear just from looking at the IPs that they're the same user given their editing pattern, however it is quite normal for a user's IP to change like this, and so I see no violation of the sockpuppetry policy here. Edit warring is another issue, but that should be dealt with in proper venue. I see that the page has already been protected, so there's nothing to do here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If you close this with no action against the named account, then nothing else need be done. However, if you recommend that some action be taken, the case should be moved to the named account. No case should be opened with an IP as the master that also has named account(s). Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I probably would have wondered about moving it if I suspected a connection, I don't think I've encountered this particular situation before. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * please block  and  each 48 hours for WP:3RR violations. Since  linked themselves to the 173.238 IP (here) they could be blocked for the same reason, and for vowing to continue the edit war when protection is lifted, but given the voluntary admission and since the page is protected now I'll leave that to admin discretion. I find it very likely given the history of the talk page that  is linked to the 93.36 IPs, and I will move this page as a result, however I think that page protection will stem the socking, and blocking only one of them will prevent them from participating in dispute resolution which I assume is the next step for these two editors. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I took the case out of admin status. If there's an edit-warring problem, then it should be taken to the correct forum. And certainly a non-admin SPI clerk cannot request a block for anything but sock puppetry.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to comment that the OP has brought this to my talk page trying to get me to unprotect the page, which isn't going to happen. Katietalk 20:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well then, if I've overstepped my non-administrator britches, let's just block the two 93.36 IPs then, as sockpuppets of Xoil, and disregard everything else I said. Next you'll tell me non-admins shouldn't throw pies at the Prime Minister. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Were you intentional in not requesting a block for the master (Xoil)? ~ Rob 13 Talk 07:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * More detail on the connection between Xoil and the two IPs would also be helpful. I'm seeing fairly substantial differences in behavior, which I'll email you for WP:BEANS reasons. ~ Rob 13 Talk 07:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The IPs are stale at this point, so not much I can do there. I'm not convinced enough to block Xoil based on the evidence presented. There are days between edits here, the edits aren't particularly quacking, and I see a few behavioral differences that give me pause. I did, however, block the filer for evading their block from 173.238.79.44. Closing. ~ Rob 13 Talk 15:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)