Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/99.146.23.208/Archive

31 October 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Performing identical vandalism on The Usual Suspects. Page was protected for 3 days as a result. 1966batfan (talk) 23:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The article's been protected, so I think blocking the IPs now would be a bit overkill. Relist as necessary. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

01 November 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Same location as sockmaster. Similar personal attacks directed toward same editor. Edits on movie articles with similar edit summaries, which often refer to RepublicanJacobite as a liar and vandal. 1966batfan (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Without knowing about this SPI, I had already blocked this IP address for blatantly obvious block evasion of 99.106.108.114. The following are also involved: 99.70.66.43, 99.93.150.71, 99.14.132.194, in addition to the ones already noted in the earlier SPI case. The range is far too big for a range block. The articles affected can be protected, but the person seems to be stalking and harassing RepublicanJacobite, and it will obviously not be realistic to protect every page that RepublicanJacobite ever edits, so it looks as though a lot of Whack-a-mole will be needed too. Articles affected more than once include The Usual Suspects, Ordinary People, A Beautiful Mind (film), and Brave Destiny, but there may be more, and there are certainly more which have been attacked once each. Anyway, as far as this SPI is concerned, I don't see there is any more to be done for now, so it may as well be closed. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

02 November 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Made identical edits on 4 separate pages with this summary: Again, I cannot get a valid user name, because RepublicanJacobite keeps getting people to block me. So I must use anon for now. Due to my service provider, I get a new IP address every time I log in, so that is why my IP changes, and I am not socking. RJ continues to UNDO every change I make. He threatens to undo all my edits "til Doomsday."

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:99.70.66.43

He writes: "I do not care what that admin. says...every edit you make from here 'til doomsday will be reverted on sight." As you can see, several admins chastised RJ for his vandalising of my edits, and he simply said, in his own words, that he does not care what the admins say and he will continue to vandalize my work.

If you block me for too many reverts within 24 hours, then I accept that. But as other admins have discussed, you must also block RJ for warring, newbie biting, too many reverts, falsely acsusing someone of vandalism, etc

This edit also falsely accuses me of being an admin, as it was placed on my talk page. (He likely thinks I'm an admin because I started a sockpuppet investigation of him) Like all of his other socks, it attacks RepublicanJacobite. 1966batfan (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

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

This user is an IP address. Dynamic IP addresses change often. All of the "suspected sockpuppets" you have presented here, and in the archives, are IP addresses that geolocate to the same geographical area. The IP is making no attempt at hiding the fact. On a related note, labeling the IP's contributions as vandalism isn't really appropriate. Just because his content additions are overly detailed or fail to keep a neutral point of view, doesn't mean the edits are vandalism. The edits the IP made aren't necessarily needed additions, but his edits appear to be constructive and in good faith. Reverting the IP multiple times and giving him/her generic vandalism warnings, rather than explaining the reason for the revert, isn't really the best way to treat a new editor. Alpha_Quadrant   (talk)  20:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I kinda agree with Alpha Quadrant on this. As far as I can tell, the IP isn't evading block; there was no block handed out in the first place. That they're on a dynamic ISP is a pain in the ass, but I don't see anything immediately actionable here. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

03 November 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Same old stuff: anti-Republican Jacobite. All edits have been on talk pages of users involved. One of them openly stated that they were a sockpuppet as well! This is annoying and I think CheckUser is needed.--1966batfan (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

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

1966batfan, please take a look at the most recent SPI archive for this IP address. Currently, the IP isn't doing anything blockable. The IP is angry because he was blocked for edit warring, but RepublicanJacobite wasn't. Asking the admin for clarification on why that is so, isn't a blockable offense. Checkuser won't be able to do anything to find "socks" because the IP is refusing to register an account. He has a right to be anonymous, even if that means he is editing from a dynamic IP address. Checkuser is a tool that allows a trusted user to see the IP addresses a particular account is using. If the user doesn't have an account, then checkusering the IP will do absolutely nothing. The IP is not even trying to hide the fact that his IP is dynamic. The IP is not currently blocked, as the 24 hour three revert rule violation block has long since expired. Alpha_Quadrant   (talk)  19:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Mostly on JamesBWatson's talk page. He complains constantly about RJ.--1966batfan (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * What same old stuff? Which one said they were a sockpuppet? Where did they say this (diffs, please)? The evidence you've provided is far, far from sufficient for using checkuser. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 00:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There's also the fact that CU is not used on IPs. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's incorrect. Please see below. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * - IPs can't be CUed. I do echo Deskana's request for more info.  Alexandria   (talk)  13:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hold your horses, people. IPs can have checks run on them. You're partially right in that I'd be unlikely to say if anything came of the check publicly (although I actually can if I deem it necessary), but in principle there's nothing wrong with running checks on IPs. See a relevant post on the Arbitration Committee noticeboard. Due to this, the request should not be declined on that basis. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I tend to deny requests that are IP only, that's all. Alexandria   (talk)  16:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you shouldn't, because there's nothing stopping us from doing checks on IPs and acting accordingly. :-) --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 20:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * closing: no evidence has been presented to indicate that this user is in anyway violating sockpuppetry policies. Having a dynamic IP address is not in itself a violation of policies pertaining to multiple accounts. If you have issues with the user's actual edits themselves, then please take this to more relevant forums. SpitfireTally-ho! 00:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

04 November 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Now he has an account, NaschyCushing. He also is talking about this with User:Djathinkimacowboy, who also had problems with RJ as an IP. (See [|this] for more info). User talk:Djathinkimacowboy has a conversation between him and this user. Both have openly admitted their dislike of RJ on this talk page. 1966batfan (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * . Aside from the fact that you're still lacking all of the evidence that I asked for above and have not provided any evidence demonstrating possible abuse of multiple accounts, the account in question has directly admitted a connection to the IPs. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 21:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * closing per Deskana. You have not presented evidence which indicates a violation of WP:SOCK. Please make sure you have such evidence before filing SPI cases. Thanks, SpitfireTally-ho! 00:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)