Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bluemarine/Archive

Report date May 21 2009, 06:41 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Allstarecho


 * has tagged all these IPs as socks of . As Bluemarine is currently under a community ban, and just recently came off of a simultaneous year long Arbcom ban, and as there is a current discussion going on to revisit his community ban, checks of these IP addresses are in order. I do know for a fact that Bluemarine has been socking on a sister project within the last week, using the listed IP 68.175.66.95. With so many IPs, some or all may come back inconclusive since Bluemarine, aka Matt Sanchez, does travel around the world a good bit in his duties as a "reporter". He's also known to access the site using Verizon and Sprint wireless and I'm sure some of these IPs will come back to those. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 06:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Bluemarine has been the subject of a long term impersonation campaign which appears to have been perpetrated by banned Pwok. Request checking for possible impersonation. Durova Charge! 16:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

Requested by - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 06:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

With a change of code from E to A Whilst I take the view that the Arbcom decision to restore some editing rights to this user actually supercedes the community ban, he clearly remains under Arbcom sanction, and the edits made by these IPs would clearly violate the terms of that sanction if made by BM. Mayalld (talk) 08:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * ❌ Other than the IP address from which the account User:Bluemarine edited while logged in, I do not see any currently available technical or behavioral evidence of sockpuppetry on the other IPs. -- Avi (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Icestorm815 •  Talk  17:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Report date August 3 2009, 06:31 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Allstarecho

User's only edits have been to the Matt Sanchez, aka User:, article and to my own talk page - while discussion concerning Bluemarine's community ban is ongoing. For additional background, see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Note that another editor has placed a suspected sockpuppet tag on the IP's talk page. The IP geolocates to New York, home of Bluemarine and belongs to a military ISP provider, SEGOVIA INC. Bluemarine is involved with the military in various capacities. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  06:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I believe this filing is in bad faith. Allstarecho is hounding and harrassing at this point. At Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents a discussion has resulted in an outcome that ASE, to put it mildly, disagrees with. A cursory check of the whois data places the IP in Virginia, while Sanchez seems to live in New York City. Absent serious abuse, and there doesn't seem to be anything of the like, but helpful article talkpage edits, and a flippant but nevertheless civil comment to ASE's page, that this is bordering on requiring a topicban for Allstarecho. -- M  ask?  07:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users
 * ARIN WHOIS, btw, not the default in the user template above. To illustrate why you do that, DNS stuff geolocates me to New Jersey, when in fact I live in Oakland, California. Realized I didnt mention that is original post. -- M  ask?  07:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is certainly not a bad faith filing. The IP approached me first, leaving a comment on my talk page. Another user, not me, tagged the IP as a suspected sock. So why is it presumed this is a bad faith filing? Calling it such, is bad faith itself. Additionally, the WHOIS link presented my AKMask only shows where the company that owns the IP is located. The IP itself geolocates to New York City as proven by DNS Stuff and by ip2location.com.
 * DNS Stuff specifically shows:
 * WHOIS - 64.235.123.179
 * Location: United States [City: New York, New York]
 * OrgName:   Segovia, Inc.
 * OrgID:     SEGOV
 * Address:   600 Herndon Parkway
 * Address:   Suite 200
 * City:      Herndon
 * StateProv: VA
 * PostalCode: 20170
 * Country:   US


 * ip2location.com specifically shows:
 * UNITED STATES NEW YORK NEW YORK 40.7488°N, -73.9846°W
 * Net Speed: DSL ISP: SEGOVIA INC Domain: GLOBALSAT.NET


 * As one can see, while yes the IP is owned by a company in Virginia, the IP is actually located in New York, New York. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  08:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I very seriously doubt thats an accurate placement. dnsstuff is notoriously inaccurate. I'm on comcast, a well known ISP with reasonably understood address mapping, and the site helpfully tells me i'm "Located near: MT. LAUREL, NEW JERSEY (US)". This is on the other side of the continent. ARIN, a well known entity, deeply rooted into the fabric of the internet (it's a RIR) and is unwilling to take this ip farther then viginia. They do, however, accurately place my IP in the bay area. I can provide screenshots of both services assumptions if you'd like. -- M  ask?  11:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Point Sorry if this is coming together haphazardly, but it's 5 am, so you'll have to excuse me. But the code letter is wrong. As the discussion at ANI has shown, Sanchez is not currently under a community ban, is not at this time blocked, and absent any actual policy violation by the IP, this is all for moot either way it falls. If the IP is Sanchez, he's still done nothing wrong, or if it is, as i suspect, some wacko taking us all on a spin after observing the sheer amount of drama Allstarecho has kicked up on ANI, this is also for naught. I believe a warning for ASE to stop harassing and provoking Sanchez is due, as ASE seems to be ignoring the more gentle suggestions made by ChildofMidnight to do the same in the ANI thread. -- M  ask?  12:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, as I said, the IP posted to my talk page. Again, as I said, another user, not me, tagged the IP as a suspected sock of Bluemarine. So, this is not "harassing or provoking Sanchez". And yes, he is still under a community ban. The community ban was never lifted by the community. His Arbcom ban expired but as Arbcom said, has nothing to do with his community ban and is separate from the community ban. But even if he weren't still under a community ban, socking is still unacceptable, especially given his past socking which has been proven. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  15:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested by - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  06:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * : His status with respect to the community ban and ongoing arbitration restrictions is unclear and appears to be in dispute; unless his status is clarified as either "banned" or "restricted" in a sense that makes the edits above a clear violation, no CU is warranted. (Note that arbitrator comments at the pending clarification seem to indicate a community ban is still in effect, but the question remains unresolved.) Nathan  T 16:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * per new developments. Nathan  T 03:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

The behaviour indicates the same person, and thus it is still a case of block evasion. As such, I have blocked the IP for 55 hours. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 22:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks ❌, unless Matt Sanchez has mastered teleportation. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems rather vague but thanks for running the CU. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  03:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)