Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DieSwartzPunkt/Archive

18 December 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Both users edit similar phrases.

Both frequent power and electronics articles.

Both attack User:Wtshymanski almost immediately after account creation

IP has good knowledge of WP after only a few edits, Reference formatting User:DieSwartzPunkt posted an ANI against me using the IP and then attempted to cover it up.

Both are profess European origin, around Portsmouth Emgland.  Both participated in a phoney block attack on my talk page and attepted to interfere with a consensus on Three-phase power talk page

SockMaster User:DieSwartzPunkt slipped up when he launched his complaint and used his IP revealing all then attempted to cover it up. . Note the IP is the same as the interfering IP and he hung himself with this one.

IPsock edits setup of SockMaster's sandbox RfC page during initial setup.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.118.142.187 (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It appears he ran into stiff editing opposition from Wtshymanski and then created an IPSockpuppet to assist with plight. Please note that about his fourth edit he complained to Ellen of the Roads.. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I placed a sockpuppet flag on the User:DieSwartzPunkt talk page as a notice but he just removed it. His user page has not been created and an IP editor cannot create one. Is there a policy of where and formality for this? Does it need to remain until the investigation s closed? 174.118.142.187 (talk) 04:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Those templates don't change the way an admin will act on this case, or sockpuppetry in general. If it's determined he's a sock then someone will add one. Until then (and probably even after then), it doesn't even matter. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

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

This one is so easy to answer, it is beyond belief. (Finding this would have been a lot easier if the complainant had provided the correct template on my user page and pointed to this discussion.)

As an editor who uses an IP address, you would think that 174.118.142.187 would be aware that every user account on Wikipedia has associated with it one or more IP addresses.

The Wikipedia editing screen (or it might even be the operating system) itself has a small fault that when you type [ctrl-N] to create a duplicate editing screen, the duplacate is sometimes created as not logged in. This usually goes un-noticed for a while hence my contributions are shown as an IP address. This is what happened when I created the ANI, but I noticed after the page was saved and naturally I corrected the attribution. Sometimes: I just plain forget to log in (in isn't automatic).

In my part of the world (Europe), virtually every ISP uses dynamic IP addressing. This means that the IP address I have today will not necessarily be the one that I have tomorrow. Hence the range of IP addresses shown (and I'm fairly sure that the list is not exhaustive). I have no control whatsoever over what IP address I get at any time or how long it remains allocated. Many of the edits shown on the IP addresses are unfamiliar to me so the addresses have been allocated to other editors. However, I have no connection with Canteloupe2 so he is just fishing here.

I should also point out that since the ANI was raised, I have been subject to a barrage of abuse and allegation from 174.118.142.187 including deleting of my comments from article talk pages. This would seem to be part of a larger attempt at hounding and abuse.

The allegation of interfering with a concensus is unfounded and in fact it is the reverse that is true. My action was to remove a deadline for discussion which 174.118.142.187 had no right to impose (and others had pointed this out). It was 174.118.142.187 himself who attempted to rig the discussion in his favour by committing vandalism and deleting my comment opposing his proposal (to change the spellings from American english to British english (contrary to WP:ENGVAR. The tirade of abuse has followed since this. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I had a bit of an arguement with the accused Talk:Eiffel Tower Certainly no evidence of sockpuppetry there.TheLongTone (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I'm confused DieSwartzPunkt. So you are saying all these IPs (and more) are yours, but they weren't used to violate our socking policy, it was an accident?  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 23:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That's exactly what he's saying, from the look of it. There are a few things that don't add up, however. If these IPs are indeed DieSwartzPunkt accidentally logged out, then as a user who's been around since January 2011, does he really think he can indefinitely block an IP by placing a block notice on its talk page? However, I find some the accusations made by 174.118.142.187 to be, frankly, ridiculous. The idea that these edits are an "attempt to cover up" the fact that he submitted the report from his IP is totally preposterous compared to the more likely explanation that he was accidentally logged out. He has nothing to gain from submitting a report anonymously compared to submitting it from his account. Additionally, there was absolutely no evidence submitted to suggest there may be a link between DieSwartzPunkt and Cantaloupe2. Taking all this in to account, this request is with prejudice. A clerk/administrator can take a look at this case and decide if the edits that DieSwartzPunkt has made while logged out are in violation of our standards on sockpuppetry and take action on that if they wish to. However, there do appear to be quite a few problematic IP edits to Three-phase power which I may investigate when I have the time. --(ʞɿɐʇ)  ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've gone through the contribs, and while there is plenty of overlap in DieSwartzPunkt and his IPs, I don't see that it was deceiving or use abusively, so assuming good faith here. I would say that it is highly recommended that he insure he is logged on as to not cause confusion in the future.  Confusion like this SPI.  As for the filing party and any boomerang, I will leave that in the hands of Deskana who has already shown an interest and is more than capable.  The diffs I did look at in reference to 174.118.142.187's activities are frequently worrisome.  Closing this as there doesn't seem to be abuse of multiple accounts.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 02:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)