Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AntaineNZ/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets








Evidence submitted by Seb az86556

 * IP #1 / 222.152.142.127
 * IP #2 / 222.152.145.220
 * IP #3 / 222.152.142.137
 * IP #4 / 222.152.151.138


 * self-outing with IP #4 (222.152.151.138)

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Since I am not technically "other users," I will comment here again instead of continuing the string below. The IPs were clearly edit-warring and circumventing the 3RR-rule (The article even got edit-protected over this). Until yesterday, we were under the impression that we are dealing with 4 different persons. "Accidentally being logged out" is not a valid excuse to avoid 3RR and in this case is clearly disruptive. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 20:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
This looks very like a case of editing while not logged in. That is in itself not sockpuppetry. Is there any evidence of abuse, disruption or deception from these accounts? Are the IPs attempting to manuufacture a false appearance of consensus, for example? It would help to the evidence address these points. Rhomb (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is more than just a user who forgets to log in. The IPs listed above, User:AntaineNZ and User:Rabka Uhalla have been editing the same article, Minaret controversy in Switzerland and the talk page of this article, pushing the same, fairly extreme, POV, and making the appearance of consensus at the talk page for a rather extreme viewpoint. They both argued there that the ussue surrounding minaret construction in Switzerland is NOT a controversy. First, Rabka Uhalla makes this point  and then very shortly thereafter AntaineNZ supports it .  Rather quickly after that Rabka Uhalla makes the corresponding edit removing the word "controversy" to the article in question:. I posted two replies to Rbka Uhalla's comment and also warned Rabka Uhalla about inappropriateness and disruptive nature of inflammatory and patently offensive comments like this where Rabka Uhalla argues that the best use of Quran is as a toilet paper. Rather quickly, AntaineNZ, while logged out and operating from IP 222.152.151.138, came to Rabka Uhalla's defense:. Note that Rabka Uhalla is a new account, createdtwo days ago and operating basically as an SPA. My impression is that Rabka Uhalla is a sock for User:AntaineNZ and so are the above listed IPs. Nsk92 (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It was my impression that AntaineNZ=Rabka Uhalla also. Regardless, one or the other probably is going to merit a block for some reason soon if not now, if not this one than another. Шизомби (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If there's a claim of using IPs to evade 3RR then that is certainly grounds for an investigation. My point is simply that such claims should be made up front rather than leaving us to guess what the problematic behavior is.  Rhomb (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Self-endorsing for CheckUser attention to check if there's a connection between AntaineNZ/IPs (the IPs are clearly Antaine as this is self-admitted) and



I find it odd that this user all of a sudden pops up and starts edit-warring on the article, essentially picking up where the IPs left off. MuZemike 20:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

No comment on the IPs, but the accounts are almost certainly ❌, as 15000 km separates them. J.delanoy gabs adds 22:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions
AntaineNZ blocked 1 week for edit-warring via IP socks. MuZemike 01:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)