Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darknipples/Archive

24 January 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

The IP address who had their first edit on 22 December 2014 posted a long WP:AE case about and. The request has diffs dating back from 2013 and it is easily seen that the IP is not new to Wikipedia. The request itself has almost been like written on behalf of Lightbreather, detailing the conduct of Mike Searson towards LB.

The IP however likely isn't LB. The IP's editing pattern is strongly connected to Gun show loophole controversy like Darknipples'. The user interaction tool reveals three different user talkpages which both Darknipples and the IP have edited: User talk:Mike Searson, User talk:Lightbreather and User talk:Anastrophe. The interaction at Anastrophe's is especially curious: Darknipples has thanked the user before for gun related edit and the IP later asked advice about GA related to gun articles. On Talk:Gun show loophole controversy, Darknipples has made a new section where the IP responds but Darknipples does not.

The IP filing the AE request "on behalf of" Lightbreather can be explained with that Lightbreather and Darknipples seem to be wikifriends (Darknipples' talkpage history) and they have worked together on the Gun show loophole controversy article. In a previous SPI Lightbreather was accused to be Darknipples, but I think it's more likely that they're wikifriends. --Pudeo' 07:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a crazy conspiracy theory masked as a sockpuppet allegation. Even the briefest glance at our editing shows Darknipple is a very different editor, even if we share some interests or POVs. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Did you notify Darknipples that you've started an SPI against them? Lightbreather (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I did not. It's not in the "How to open an investigation" procedure at Sockpuppet investigations nor is there apparently a pre-coded message template for it. I believe opening this pinged the editor, however. --Pudeo' 22:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, I don't know who the IP editor is, but it isn't Darknipples. Lightbreather (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I hope that a second editor will review the case. I am going to read about the SPI process, and I may return if I figure out a better way to ask for a review. The main question is: Has this IP editor done anything wrong? Lightbreather (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the WP:PROXY link, Mike V. I have read it and it says that open or anonymising proxies may be blocked from editing, but that seems to be contingent upon their being used abusively. WP:SOCK lists about a dozen inappropriate uses (and about an equal number of legitimate uses). The IP user is not me and he/she is not Darknipples, and since no-one else is trying to introduce pro-control balance to gun-control articles at this time that I'm aware of, I don't think the IP is someone "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts." Probably the best guess, if the IP editor is abusing a proxy, is that he/she is circumventing a sanction, but I don't know of a blocked pro-control editor at this time. There are three pro-gun editors topic-banned from GC articles right now, and one who is site-banned.

Unless this IP editor has done something wrong, I don't see why he/she should be blocked. They should be unblocked, and maybe a GC DS alert put on their talk page, IMO. Lightbreather (talk) 15:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Hmm, I don't think the behavioral evidence is that strong to connect the IP to DN. However, the IP was editing through an open proxy, so i've blocked it. A second clerk is welcome to review it before archiving the case. Mike V • Talk 02:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: After further investigation, it appears that the IP is not a proxy, thus I've unblocked the range. Mike V • Talk 17:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read Open proxies, it will provide further info that you may find helpful. Mike V • Talk 15:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)