Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Everyme/Archive

Evidence submitted by A Nobody

 * Copied from ANI.--chaser (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

An IP sockpuppet of a banned user appears to also be commenting in the AfD (the IPs ONLY edits are to this AfD). The IP (78.34.241.98) is of the same German 78.34-range as banned User:Everyme (formerly User:Dorftrottel). If you scroll down and look of the list of known IPs presented here, you will see that this user is indeed associated with the 78.34 German ranged IPs and moreover has a history of showing up to argue counter to my stance. Since the Everyme account was blocked and therefore also since the evidence presented in his RfC, at least a dozen additional 78.34 ranged IPs have been identified and blocked as him already for dirsuptive editing (if you need a list, please let me know, it will just take a few minutes to compile). The user in question has even had edits of such a vicious nature deleted if not oversighted. Incidentally, checking the edit history of the article under discussion reveals that it has indeed been edited in the past by Dorftrottel and Everyme, who has an established animosity toward Star Wars articles: Articles for deletion/Confederacy of Independent Systems, Articles for deletion/Darth Vader's helmet, Articles for deletion/Force lightning, Articles for deletion/Galactic Civil War, Articles for deletion/Human (Star Wars), Articles for deletion/Jacen Solo, Articles for deletion/Jaina Solo, Articles for deletion/Jaina Solo (2nd nomination), Articles for deletion/Jerec, Articles for deletion/List of Star Wars ship-mounted weapons, Articles for deletion/Mandalorian, Articles for deletion/Techno Union, etc. (in all cases he said to delete and/or badgering those arguing to keep). Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
I moved this here for more eyes in part because I just would have closed it out of hand (before I'd noticed BobTGuevara, who's now been cleared). But of what remains, we have Everyme, who is indef blocked, and evidence that he has started editing from his former IP range. Admins routinely disregard or give less weight to AFD votes. Rangeblocking does not appear practical or necessary to deal with AFDs. His range now is either 78.34.241 or 78.34.133-143. It's hard for me to distinguish any range from that except 78.34..., or 65,000 IPs! That's too many. So I'm not seeing much administrative action we can take to deal with the IPs at this stage. Anyone else care to weigh in?--chaser (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser request
Self-endorsing for CheckUser attention here. I'd like a check against the 78.34.128.0/17 range on this user whose only edits have been in the Star Wars Chronology article and AFD:



MuZemike 03:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it unlikely he is Everyme/78.34 given their contrasting !votes in the AFD. If BobTGuevara were an Everyme sock, he'd surely vote delete. Of course the question remains whether he is someone else's sock.--chaser (talk) 03:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Nothing on note on the range or BobTGuevara. Brandon (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Yeah, the IP is clearly Everyme. However, I'm going to hold off on blocking as it's likely the IP would have been reassigned by now. I checked the /17 range, and it's a bit busy for a rangeblock, anyways. I'll make a note on the AFD for the closing admin to disregard. MuZemike 02:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions
Marking as closed with no action taken. It is clear, though, that the IP is Everyme, and the closing admin in that AFD should take that into account if it hasn't been closed already. MuZemike 20:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Report date April 14 2010, 19:34 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Help desk Paul 23 87  19:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Paul 23 87


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
 * What clever sleuthing and razor-sharp reasoning may have led Paul to this very far-fetched conclusion? I bet it was my free admittance that it is me, here. What is a checkuser needed for when I am obviously not making a secret of my identity? --78.34.252.188 (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Paul 23 87  19:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

, because this is, will need to be decided on behavioral evidence SpitfireTally-ho! 19:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Since they've been kind enough to admit it, I've gone ahead and blocked the IP. TN X Man  19:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)