Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Horizonlove/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

172.112.132.156's first and only edit was to continue an edit war started by Horizonlove on Victoria Wilson-James. If not a sock, possibly a meat. It's just quite an odd coincidence. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Thank you for immediately closing this. I don't have a sockpuppet, that's ridiculous. This was only opened because I reported User:Walter Görlitz to the admin desk for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. This is his 14th time doing so. And I also find it ironic that he would open an investigation against me when he was also blocked in the past for sockpuppeting. LOL Horizonlove (talk) 16:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not closed. It's just that they can't out your IP. However, an admin can still address the WP:QUACK issue. Walter Görlitz (talk)
 * Help yourself! I'm an open book, nothing to hide. LOL. But you and I both know that the only reason you opened this ridiculous investigation is because I reported you for edit warring, otherwise you would have done this several days ago. Very bad behavior. Horizonlove (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, the only reason I opened it was that I finally had time to. You can assume whatever you want. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * A bit of clarity. When I saw the anon make the same edit you did, I was immediately concerned by it, but since (if it was you) it was not a violation of 3RR, I didn't act on it, and yes, I was busy with other things. Your reporting did remind me of it, but again, busy with other things, I didn't not pursue the SPI. It wasn't until today, when I had the time, that I opened the SPI. I'm expecting an admin to close it with a comment that it wasn't a violation, but a comment to the effect that if it was you, to be sure to not edit while logged out, an if that's not an option, to list the IP as an alternate account. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * For all we know, that IP may have edited other pages prior to editing or reverting on Victoria Wilson James and had been given a new IP address at the time of the edit. In any case, this SPI retaliation case was very immature and again only opened because I reported you. It's very convenient that you only opened this case after I opened a case on you. But whatever. This sockpuppet case has been declined, so it's as good as closed anyway. Horizonlove (talk) 07:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's quite possible, but IPV4 addresses tend to be assigned to routers for a long time, and this is a static IP so it would take a fair bit of work to request a new one from Spectrum. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And again, the sockpuppet case has not been declined as is evidenced by the fact that it's still open. The check user has been declined with the reason given below. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Now it has been closed, not as lacking credibility, but as having seen no further action by either editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's because there is no connection, respectfully. This is a case opened by a user who had been blocked multiple times for edit warring, breaking the three-revert rule, and threatening other users, and when I reported him to the admin desk, he decided to respond immaturely by opening this case. Horizonlove (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - CheckUser evidence cannot be used to connect IP's to registered accounts. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Case is stale, rereport if disruption occurs. No comment as to if there is/was any connection. Closing. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)