Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/98.180.202.52/Archive

Report date February 22 2009, 17:55 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets
 * - most recently active
 * - one-year block (many edits from this one)

See User:EEMIV/scratch for more details on each - locations, edit ranges, block spans

Clearly the same editor with access to a series of semi-permanent IPs -- some of them associated with an Arkansas school, others (during break periods at home?) in Kansas. Comes and goes, make frequent talk-page comments (see series of diffs here) making clear intent to subvert consensus and vandalize project. I'd resigned myself to having to request occasional non-permanent blocks on these public IPs and semi-protection of pages for non-registered vandal. However, in this edit, the user claims to have a regular account under which he does regular, constructive edits. Jeckyl & Hyde block evasion and participation undermine community built on good-faith contributions. Although this vandalism has been going on for a long time, he/she early on discovered the "Undo", referred specifically to WP:GNG and WP:FICT, and even took their grievance to the Village Pump -- the type of details and practice that generally escape passive vandals but are well known to establish users.
 * Evidence submitted by --EEMIV (talk)

--EEMIV (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by --EEMIV (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

The 130. IP range is a /19 (affecting potentially 8192 users), and the 70. IP range is a /16 (potentially affecting 65536 users). Thus range blocks are out of the question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterSymonds (talk • contribs)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Minor note - rangeblocks are rarely out of the question. There are many types of rangeblock, and also IPBE now functions for the exceptions. If there is doubt, ask for a collateral damage check, but don't necessarily assume a range block is too wide. FT2 (Talk 13:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a bad choice of words on my part, but most /16s are too noisy to be blocked for any lengthy block. I probably should have made it more clear, but I know rangeblocks are rarely out of the question. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 14:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Request endorsed by CU Avi.  Syn  ergy 22:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

-- Avi (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Left a message for Avi on his talk page asking if he is still running the check.  Syn  ergy 20:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Waiting on response from functionaries who may be able to shed light on some unclear results. Will update when decision is reached. Sorry about the delay. -- Avi (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Currently available technical evidence is not conclusive enough to indicate the existence of sock/meat puppetry. -- Avi (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC) -- Avi (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions