Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eagleburas/Archive

17 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets
 * ( added by Shadowjams (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC) )
 * ( added by Shadowjams (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC) )
 * ( added by Shadowjams (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC) )


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

The 200 IP is a proxy and blocked. IP from 201 appears to also be a proxy but is not blocked. Requesting CU in case there are any sleepers. The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * The geo information is obvious on its own, the CU wouldn't (and of course can't) need to say anything on the point... the sleeper possibility's real though. Also, that account that edited wasn't new as it had been used in the past, but it clearly was resurrected after the article was semi protected (so the IPs wouldn't work). Shadowjams (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * TDA probably should have added a bit more detail, but it's as much my fault since I suggested SPI in the first place... I'm not 100% confident of the need for CU on this, particularly after it became clear that the other IPs were proxies. Rich's description sums up the editing history well. I'll just add that based on the known IPs and the editing patterns in the past (which didn't seem to be abusive), it's quite clear the geo information of the sockmaster. I assume that the blocked account was accessed through a proxy (maybe a new one) because the others were blocked at that point. Shadowjams (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * . I was initially about to decline this CU request, even if only for finding sleepers, on the grounds that there were no already-known socks except for IP's (which we can't do a CU on by policy).  However, after re-reading WP:NOTFISHING, I've changed my mind — since there clearly is evidence here suggesting sockpuppetry (namely, the IP edits followed by the new account doing the same thing), a CU is justified (IMO) in order to find any sleepers, even if a CU isn't allowed to say anything specifically about the IP's.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * - I understand what you're asking for, but where is the abuse? There is nothing in the evidence above explaining why the named user is blocked or what they were doing to end up blocked or for how they're connected to the IP addresses. It isn't a clerk's job to provide what I'm looking for, but I also can't run any checks without any basis for them. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The three IP's and the account, in succession, waged a prolonged edit war over a three-hour period last night with several other editors at Collapse of the World Trade Center — repeatedly adding and re-adding a YouTube link allegedly showing the collapse was consistent with a controlled demolition, and rebuffing objections that the material was fringe and YouTube is not a reliable source with edit summaries such as "stating clear facts"; "STOP undoing"; "edit undid by denialist"; and "regardless of where the video is hosted, it is still footage of the collapse consistent with a controlled demolition; denialism does not change that". See here for sample diffs by [ 68.13.80.89], [ 201.211.229.223], [ 200.201.138.122], and [ Eagleburas] for examples, and look at the recent revision history of the article for more if necessary.  About 20 reversions in all, over a period of about three hours.  As one IP was blocked, another picked up the baton.  After the article was semi-protected, the account (which had already been around and autoconfirmed for some time) continued the edit war until it, too, was blocked.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 22:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * . Just so there will be no confusion, I believe the diffs I provided above are sufficient to support a CU request.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No other accounts found. Open proxy blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing else to be done. Rschen7754 11:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)