Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc/Archive

09 January 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Given the extended history of blocks and socking, it must not surprise. True believer- and then avidly pushing such nonsense. Wow- It also seems like he has been using this account for gaining votes in AFD.--- Has also posted on Jimbo Wales' talk (page), something that not even I have until now. Including some more user and article talk pages. Capeo has only 236 contributions in 8 years. Bladesmulti (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2015 (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

 * There are additional instances of supporting each other: (1 2) (3, 4) (5, 6) There's also a similarity in the tone of both accounts that raises some concern. Unfortunately, I think a check is appropriate here. Mike V • Talk 01:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  04:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking. I'm closing the case with no action taken. Mike V • Talk 04:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

01 August 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

The WP:AVDUCK essay has been a battleground, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc even voted for its deletion.. This editor continues to be against this essay and recently posted so on AN/I. This post is a rant questioning allowing the essay to exist. I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc was taken to WP:AN/I by . for inserting non consensus links. Before the AN/I section was opened I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc's made an edit using Monty Python as a basis.. This was removed as not on topic. After being brought to AN/I an IP made the same edit, including the same wikilinks to a relatively new and unused essay. This edit was reverted. and the IP again made the same edit again, same wikilinks which was removed again.. AlbinoFerret 20:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC) I am adding the IP of a poster to this SPI. I find it strange that an IP would show up here to suggest they are the same IP and why they reverted. I also think a Checkuser on these IP's is a good idea because multiple editors have been involved in the battleground. , but I am unsure if this will be done as a normal part of this investigation, or where to ask to make sure it is if its not automatic. AlbinoFerret 13:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

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

According to the instructions for defending oneself, I hereby accuse of acting in bad faith and as an advocacy duck and WP:TAGTEAMing as a bad hand account of  in retaliation for my pointing out how poisonous their group's contributions have been to this encyclopedia. Along with them, and  are essentially trying to strong-arm and intimidate other editors, including myself, who don't share their POV that alternative medicine is effective and strive to keep Wikipedia neutral in clearly stating that there is no evidence for alternative medicine's effectiveness. These four accounts if not actually sockpuppets are most definitely meatpuppets and probably should be stopped from their ongoing campaign. jps (talk) 23:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is simply an investigation into what has happened. There is ample evidence of a possible IP sock. The same edits made to a repetitively new and unused essay, right down to the wikilinks by an IP, after you were taken to AN/I. Per WP:DUCK if it looks like a duck and acts like a duck, its a duck. AlbinoFerret  23:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * AlbinoFerret, you are suggesting that IPs are incapable of copying another persons edit, and accordingly it must be socking? Interesting logic. Unconvincing though, I'd have thought. But then again, I don't claim to have the infallible duck-spotting skills that seem to go with supporting Atsme's controversial essay.


 * Of course, were I of the paranoid persuasion, I might well point out that this could just as easily be a good old fashioned Joe-job by someone out to cause trouble. Possibly a troll. Or possibly not. Still, no point in thinking about possibilities when the duck-hunters have already confirmed the target... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The responses to the potential sock are unbelievable. We call it "grasping at straws". Please let SPI investigate, and if you feel there is no reason for concern, relax. Stop attacking innocent editors. All an oversight checkuser admin has to do is review the edit/block histories of the accused and form their own conclusions. The IP is real, there is real cause for concern - let the process run its course. Atsme 📞📧 01:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, User:Atsme, who is the "we" of whom you speak? It wouldn't be the sockfarm would it? jps (talk) 05:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Goshes, Josh - hold on a sec while I treat the rug burns I got from ROTFL. To me, a sock farm is the pile of unmatched socks I keep in the laundry room, hoping the lost socks will magically appear in the dryer.  I suppose you don't recognize User:2600:1010:B001:95C7:E562:C480:AF42:E240 do you?  All I know is that their timing and appearance at WP:AVDUCK was perfect not to mention an incredible coincidence for them to show up and immediately zero in to revert me and replace your disruptive gibberish...TWICE.  It sure looked like vandalism to me.  I wish I was savvy enough to help as a checkuser but I'm just a lowly writer still thanking my lucky stars that laptops replaced IBM typewriters, and MSWord allows us to move blocks of text around instead of having to retype the whole page.  Atsme 📞📧 06:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the single most ridiculous spi I have ever read. It should only be used as evidence that albino and atsme should never be taken seriously. To be clear I just like Month Python. Now pleas carry on burning the witch. 24.4.204.245 (talk) 13:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * If there is evidence it's that the evidence is absent. The IP beginning in 24 seems to suggest they also own the the other IP (their cell). The interaction between this IP and JPS is rather limited. The IP contributions show interest outside of area that JPS shows interest in. Considering the ANI this SPI is rather suspect. Shall we go and open up something on another board to attempt to get JPS blocked since this one isn't working?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * As far as I can make out (perhaps someone uninvolved should check), the only relevant facts here are that jps made his 'Monty Python' edit at 15:01 31 July (UTC),, Atsme posted a link to it in the ANI thread at 04:24, 1 August  and that the IP made their firs post at 17:59, 1 August. Plenty of time for one of the numerous trolls that plague ANI to see the link and take the opportunity to cause trouble. There are no 'coincidences' worthy of the name involved, as far as I can tell. Either jps made the post, or someone else did - and if checkuser can't confirm it was jps, there is nothing more that needs to be said. No proof of anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I've declined the CU request. We rarely disclose the IP address of a named account per the privacy policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have removed a lot of irrelevant (off-topic) discussion from this page (see: WP:SPI/PROC). There was a lot of discussion on whether the case filler is sock/meatpuppet. I advise you to open a separate investigation if you have some evidence. And, please (I'm talking to all participants), stop using SPI as a battleground for your disputes, it is highly disruptive. There are dozens of cases waiting to be reviewed and I had to waste my time reading all this battling.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The evidence is too weak to take any action. Closing the case.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  12:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)