Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anythingyouwant/Archive

11 August 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Widefox (talk) 07:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

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

98.179.25.191 is likely another sock of the indefed sockmaster User:West1806 based on this diff where 98.179.25.191 corrects some typos in a recent Talk page post by West1806. They also both have an interest in the same article, Jon Bruning. Meters (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Ferrylodge/Anythingyouwant has been editing under IP addresses at the various Mitt Romney articles for a while now, which he was a frequent editor on back in the day. and are two additional addresses that he has shown up under, in addition to some of those above. But I haven't seen any edits in the Romney articles or talk pages that attempt to evade 3RR or engage in vote-stacking, so there's been nothing wrong with what he's been doing there. And I do know that he's long used an iPhone for editing, even when registered, so that part of his explanation is true. But the series of reversions on the Jon Bruning article are troubling. 198.228.201.145 is definitely him (other edits on Clarence Thomas or U.S. Constitution clauses are a giveaway), 70.184.221.180 can't tell, 98.179.25.191 can't tell, 198.228.201.149 is likely him, 198.228.201.151 is definitely him, 198.228.201.156 is definitely him. So that adds up to 3RR evasion even if you ignore the 'can't tells'. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Anythingyouwant regarding the Bruning article
Well, let's start with the Jon Bruning article. I received an email, and a warning at my user talk page, that I have vandalized that article. Of course, that is false. In my life, I have made only two edits to the Bruning talk page, and one edit to the Bruning article. All were made on July 24, 2012. The two edits at the Bruning talk page are these: and. The one edit at the Bruning article was this:. And by no stretch of the imagination was any of it vandalism. I explained at the Bruning talk page as follows, in response to an editor who said "I wonder how they IP hop like that" (with reference to another editor whose IP's overlapped with mine):

(Undent) I am not the person who previously edited this article. I have never edited this article until just now. However, I use an iPhone, and people who use iPhones get their IP's shifted around a lot, and they sometimes end up sharing IPs with other people who they have no connection with. So, I hope that solves the mystery for you. I looked at the contribution history for one of the IPs I was using (out of curiosity) and that led me here. Incidentally, I suggest that you change the word "scavenging" to "highly intelligent" or "clever". Bruning explained that raccoons "are not stupid" which is why they are comparable to some people. Bruning's gaffe was bad enough; Wikipedia doesn't need to make it worse for him.198.228.201.158 (talk) 03:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

So I deny the Bruning accusations. There was not the slightest suggestion at the Bruning talk page that my sole article edit or my two consecutive talk page remarks were not useful. On the contrary, User:David1217 replied to me by saying: "Okay, great! Happy editing!". Another editor, User:Meters, agreed with me "that 'scavenging' should not be used". User:Meters then made a further article edit, saying at the talk page "I hope that is satisfactory to everyone." It was satisfactory to me, so I left the Bruning article, never to return (I am not particularly interested in him, and only visited his article because it was in my contribution history and politics is generally of interest to me).

Regarding Wasted Time R's accusation of 3RR, he should know better than to make such accusations without providing diffs. I did not try to evade 3RR. If WTR is correct then it was a mistake on my part, but it is impossible for me to determine if he is correct, because he provides no diffs. Incidentally, I prefer to edit as an IP in protest of the Wikipedia establishment's behavior toward me, which I have found grossly unfair, hypocritical, and [long list of other unflattering adjectives], and so I fully expect this proceeding to result in a permanent ban regardless of whether I actually did anything wrong. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

(Undent)These are the Bruning reversion instances that I'm pointing to: These all seem like you. They come as a surprise to me, because like I said, I've been aware of your IP editing on Romney articles for a while and haven't seen any problem with it. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * this by 198.228.201.145, who also edited Clarence Thomas and Romney
 * this by 198.228.201.157, who also edited Ninth Amendment and Romney
 * this by 198.228.201.149, who also edits Legal Tender Cases and Romney
 * this by 198.228.201.151, who also edits Ninth Amendment and Romney
 * this by 198.228.201.156, who also edits Legal Tender Cases and Romney
 * Well, none of those five Bruning edits are mine. As explained above, when unrelated people use an IPhone, their IP's get mixed.  This should be clear since the editor/vandal who made those removals also did so under other IP addresses, none of which were ever used by me, except as a coincidence.  If you check, you will find that none of the IP's used by the indeffed editor/vandal User:West1806 were ever used by me (at Clarence Thomas or Romney or Ninth Amendment or Legal Tender Cases or Royal Spa Brass or anywhere else that I typically edited under my user name), except for the single IP that I used at the Bruning article, or as a coincidence.  I have edited Clarence Thomas and Romney and Ninth Amendment and Legal Tender Cases and Royal Spa Brass as an IP, and none of the edits to those articles by the IPs in question indicate or remotely suggest any vandalism by the indefinitely blocked vandal in question. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll leave this to the professionals to sort out. If I was was wrong about these being you, I apologize.  Wasted Time R (talk) 14:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, WTR, I accept your apology. In any event, as I said above, I fully expect a perma-ban regardless of whether I did anything wrong, so I'd just like to take this opportunity to say that I mostly enjoyed working with you, and your work is mostly very admirable.  Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I mostly thank you. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

According to an editor at the user talk page for Anythingyouwant, "You discussed a couple of edits on the Jon Bruning page, but said nothing about the Royal Spa Brass edits that seem to have lead to the accusation, or any of the other overlaps." AFAIK, the only article mentioned in this proceeding where vandalism occurred was at Jon Bruning, and it was not I who did it. If there is an accusation that my edits at Royal Spa Brass were vandalism, I disagree with that accusation. I have improved Royal Spa Brass tremendously, both before this proceeding began, and after it began. Would someone please give me a diff from Royal Spa Brass where I allegedly vandalized it? Or from any other article besides Jon Bruning? Here is a cumulative diff of all the edits I have made to Royal Spa Brass, many of those edits in direct response to WideFox's observations that the article was too long and detailed and lacked references.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears that WideFox has withdrawn his accusation of vandalism at Royal Spa Brass. The only article at which I am accused of vandalism is Jon Bruning, where I did not vandalize anything.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm signing out of my God forsaken named account now. In emergency, edit my user talk page, and I'll get an email.  Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Royal Spa Brass
(moved from User talk:Widefox) Hi there. If you think that I vandalized Royal Spa Brass, could I please trouble you for at least one diff? Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Anythingyouwant. Your edits on that article are only good. Good work.
 * The issue I'm raising is that those IPs have also gained some warnings, which you've explained are from other editors. Why not use your account so there's no confusion? Widefox (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As explained a couple times above, I prefer to edit as an IP in protest of the Wikipedia establishment's behavior toward me, which I have found grossly unfair, hypocritical, and [long list of other unflattering adjectives].  As long as this is my right, I intend to use it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I find the the combination of frequent IP changes with multiple rapid edits disruptive, and has lead to this conflation with vandalism edits from the same IPs. If you continue to push your rights in protest despite such practical concerns then I guess you would accept my viewpoint as a disruptive editor. This is a shame, as your edits are constructive. Widefox (talk) 07:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The only problem arose due to editing as an IP on an iPhone. Editing as an IP on other computers does not cause such frequent IP changes.  I dare say that lots of editors edit using an iPhone, and that's not disruptive.  Do you think it would be disruptive if I continue editing with an iPhone, WideFox?  In the present instance, I'm not sure how or why you tracked down my single edit on Jon Bruning, but I think that edit was pretty well explained at the article talk page. And in that instance I deliberately followed another editor who used the same IP; I've never done that before or since and will not do it again.  Cheers.108.18.174.123 (talk) 08:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not for me to comment on your choices, and I can only see IP edit histories just as you can. Wouldn't you prefer to resolve your protest? Widefox (talk) 08:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, but it is not resolvable. It's been to ArbCom multiple times.108.18.174.123 (talk) 09:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Another advantage is that, this way, they can deal with me by merely semi-protecting an article from IP edits, instead of stalking, lying, cheating, attacking, and the rest. I prefer it when they resolve content disputes by semi-protecting.  Less  grief for me, less of my time wasted.  Cheers.  :-)108.18.174.123 (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have not been trying to evade anything. If I should be doing something differently, then please let me know.108.18.174.123 (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Checkuser will not link accounts to IPs except in rare extreme circumstances of abuse. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  22:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, editing from an IP is not a "right". You have no rights here, zero, Wikipedia is a private corporation.  I have none either.  If you are editing from an IP and your logged in name in the same article, that is called abuse (evasion of scrutiny) and will get you blocked.  If there is no overlap, then there is no abuse.  You might also want to read WP:POINT which also may apply, as disrupting Wikipedia to make some larger personal point is also called disruptive editing.  I need to look deeper before determining if action is needed.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 13:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning toward education, rather than sanctions, even though you have been here long enough to know better.  For starters, read WP:SOCK.  Anything that isn't clearly within the section Legitimate uses is socking.  Making a point doesn't fall within those bounds.  For all intent and purposes, I consider the rotating IP to be no different than an alternate user login, of which I have a couple of my own, and there are clear rules for using.  For starters, if you edit as an IP and your logged in name has ever been used, it is wise to declare in the summary, ie: Anythingyouwant editing while logged out., or vice versa if you started editing as an IP.  The burden is on you to show that you aren't trying to make it look like you are two different people.  Or never edit the same articles as an IP that you do as a registered user.  Better yet, edit only while logged in or only as an IP, which isn't a demand, but it is a good idea.  The key is that you must insure there is no possible way that it looks like it could be a form of abuse.  I'm not trying to limit your editing, only saying that you put yourself at risk when you use multiple accounts, so you need to take it upon yourself to 100% insure that it can't be seen as abuse.  It isn't enough that it isn't abuse, it can't even give any impression that it might be.  In particular, this applies to cases where there is a lot of reverts, and it is easy to get caught up in the fuss, whether they are yours or not.  And doing it as a form of protest, well, I have no idea what that proves but it might be seen as a form of disruption, so I would suggest protesting off-wiki, and just contributing good quality content on-wiki.  This is consistent with WP:HERE.  I don't savor blocking an otherwise good editor, so I won't today, but if there is confusion in the future, it is not likely that I or another admin will be generous twice.  I will close this without further action, other than this warning. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 15:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)