Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DonPevsner/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This is pro forma, both 16ConcordeSSC User talk:16ConcordeSSC and one of these IPs User talk:2600:1004:B164:7205:9411:5BD:E6BF:C05E have admitted to being the same person as DonPevsner. Compare the talk pages, the connection is clear. 16ConcordeSSC, who was indeffed in July for persistent personal attacks, is block evading in a big way with IPs this past week. They're all over on Northeastern United States railroad articles, and have moved on to other areas as well. Additional evidence is available at this AN thread. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:24, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * This edit is worth reading by anybody working this case. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocking the IPs would be pointless (and impact a lot of other legitimate editors). I've semi-protected a bunch of their most commonly edited pages.  Hopefully that'll do some good. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Our good friend is back again. Editing history shows interest in Northeastern United States railroads and the Concorde jet, consistent with this sockmaster's editing. He's been relatively quiet for a while, but I caught his edits to New York Central Mohawk and saw they clearly matched  his previous interest in this article. Pevsner often just does copyediting, but today I reverted his addition of unsourced and unencyclopedic content to the article in question. His indignant response set off alarm bells in my head; this matches with his previous behavior when challenged by other editors. The IP range should be blocked. Again, note that copyediting is most likely him, not collateral on the IP range. Happy to further discuss how I know this is Pevsner if needed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I've blocked the IP for block evasion. No comment on whether any further investigation is necessary, but a look at the page histories doesn't seem to indicate a CU is necessary. Izno (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Closing. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Same as, which resulted in a one-month IP block. He immediately went back to his same old tricks starting on the 18th, after the block expired. Apocheir (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * for six months. Closing. DatGuyTalkContribs 09:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Today, the OG account for this sockmaster woke up again. It was never blocked as it was presumed to be abandoned, but it started rapidly making copyedits today after no activity for 4 years. This is obviously him because it's his oldest account and under his real name; he did much of his editing as before getting indeffed for some very nasty personal attacks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Don has repeatedly insisted upon being confronted that he no longer wishes to edit. He always comes back. Don't take his claims to the contrary seriously - we'll be back here soon enough. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - for training RoySmith (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 2023072410000738 is relevant. Cabayi (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * -, plus the article and subject area overlap, is enough to show that this is the same individual as the one blocked in the archived case. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 22:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * , being the same individual is insufficient on its own for a sock block. The master was identified in the archived case but was not blocked at the time despite the truly awful comments he made which pointed to. I take that as an attempt to get  to use his main account, not use socks, and to not WP:LOUTSOCK. As such I've been trying to steer him, through his many emails to VRTS, to understand the concept of sockpuppetry and to return to editing from his main account. What recent action merits a block now?, blocking Don without a block notice just triggers more emails from him as he has no clue how to appeal on his user talk page. Cabayi (talk) 08:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, this has spun off in an unexpected direction. I worked the original case filed in November 2021, but don't remember any of the details.  My take on why  was not blocked (and I discussed this with Drm310 off-wiki) was that at the time the SPI case was filed, that account had not edited in over a year (most recent edit was Special:Diff/911895561).  We generally don't block inactive accounts per WP:BLOCKP.   wasn't blocked for socking, they were blocked for personal attacks and harassment, which apply to the person, not the account.  So I think blocking  on sight when the account became active again was completely legitimate.  I'm not an OS, so I no longer have access to the diff I linked to back then, nor do I remember the content. RoySmith (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for having a rethink. Don's latest email to VRTS (info-en) emphatically indicates he no longer wishes to edit so this is now moot. I'd advise anybody considering an unblock to check out the email threads. Cabayi (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I blocked the DonPevsner account because, as Roy outlined, even by returning to using the DonPevsner account, Don was still evading the block against him. I was ready to block before Drm310 made any recommendation – I only waited out of respect for Roy using the case for training. Don's behavior after the DonPevsner account block makes it clear that his behavior has not improved (compare VRT ticket to the suppressed edit). —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)