Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ibaranoff24/Archive

Report date January 16 2009, 21:46 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

The IPs above are listed in order of appearance.


 * Evidence submitted by Daedalus969


 * This IP's edits have, apart from the single sandbox edit, been to defend the suspected sock master just after the block was reviewed.


 * Secondly, the way the IP signs posts is the same way the suspected sockmaster does. I for one feel that it is blatantly obvious this IP is the blocked user, per WP:DUCK.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  04:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * All IPs listed, except the topmost IP, have been reveting to the version last edited by the suspected sock master. They have all been removing the same source, and changing the same information, despite the fact that the sources have been deemed reliable at the reliable sources noticeboard, and the fact that the sources say that the bands who's articles have been changed are a specific genre, as opposed to the genre argued by Ibaranoff and the IPs.  Secondly, I realize this next bit may be small, but the IPs, when generating casees on the 3RR notice board, take the same prose as the suspected sockmaster has when arguing specific points.  They also have the trait of starting cosectutive replies with bullets, as opposed to regular indents, even when the indent is primarily used in the discussion.


 * Thirdly, it has also come to my attention that the second article the IPs have been warring over was also an article that Ibaranoff frequented, and warred about the content over.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  21:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Fourthly, please compare the following two Edits:
 * this edit by Ibaranoff24
 * this edit by IP 65.2.201.118


 * I added the new user Hedpefan59997, as right after the checkuser results came back positive, he registered an account and posted in favor of Ibaranoff24's edits on the talk page.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  04:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * There's absolutely no evidence that I made these edits. Daedalus969, Landon1980 and Prophaniti's only basis of claim is that the editors made changes that they disagreed with. All of the edits, despite the accuser's statements, are entirely different, baring absolutely no relation to any edit I have ever made. Lastly, I have never "warred" over any article. The editors that have been warring over these article are the accusers. Daedalus969, Landon1980 and Prophaniti are all biased, unreasonable, irrational, disrespectful, lack all sense and logic and frequently disrupt Wikipedia, as shown by their frequent attempts to alter these articles to fit their perspective, no matter who is editing which article. They frequently make attempts to remove sourced information and facts, and when faced with the undeniable truth, claim that established users such as myself are the ones who are removing content, even when this is clearly untrue. I have had six featured articles and countless good articles. I should not have been blocked in the first place, when all I have ever tried to do is improve the quality of Wikipedia, even in the face of attempts by editors like these three to lower the quality of Wikipedia by removing sourced information, strongarming their own POV, and repeatedly reverting any attempts to improve the quality of any given article. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

This comment has been copied over from the user's talk page.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  07:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I will second that, everything down to the wording of the IP edits is the exact same defense as Ibaranoff. Landon1980 (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users
 * The problem is Ibaranoff is denying this, and the duration of his block will/needs to be extended to prevent further disruption. Is there enough to extend his block without having a checkuser confirm this? He is also continuing the behavior he was blocked for on his talk. Landon1980 (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Block evasion is a serious flouting (or flaunting) of the rules, and a longer block would seem to be called for. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to request that the Checkuser be run anyway. I extended a block for someone in similar circustances a while ago, and it turned out I had been wrong, and the originally blocked user was the victim of a joe job.  The fact that the IP mimics Ibaranoff24 is good reason to block the IP (per the duck test), but not Ibaranoff absent a checkuser, or a history of socking from Ibaranoff, or more than a couple of edits.  We know the IP is either a sock or someone out to frame Ibaranoff (so we block it either way), but we don't really know if Ibaranoff is a puppeteer or a victim of a frame. I am absolutely not a fan of Ibaranoff's conduct yesterday, and I could easily be wrong, and have nothing to back this up, but something feels wrong about this, and I feel a Checkuser request is appropriate. --barneca (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason more than other cases why this might be useful? It seems a very generic concern that could apply to any case, so I'm hesitant to do so without checking. FT2 (Talk 18:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (Edic conflict) Here is the IP denying that he is the aforementioned user, despite the fact that the only edits the IP has are defending this user, and the IP has exactly the same editing style as the aforementioned user.  This is the first time he denies sockpuppetry, here is the second time, and I guess I could call this the third time.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  18:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you mean, do I have evidence that this case is more likely than other cases to be a joe job, then no, I have nothing but a gut feeling that something feels a little off; it's just that the IP makes it almost too easy, and I'm surprised someone who's been around as long as Ibaranoff would try something so obvious. Since Ibaranoff has had his block lengthened for block evasion, and he's claimed on his talk page it wasn't him, Checkuser just seemed a natural next step that might be able to answer either way. --barneca (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As the admin who just blocked Ibaranoff24 for an additional 24 hours, I have to agree with barneca. I would be much happier knowing whether the IP was Ibaranoff24 or one of their opponents - and ideally, I'd like to know before this new block expires. Regards,  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 19:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally don't see how a checkuser being ran could hurt anything. Either it is Ibaranoff, or it is someone framing him. If someone is indeed framing him it would be nice to know who, as such behavior is totally inappropriate. Landon1980 (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As someone involved in all this business, I'd also happily support anything to check the user. I know it's not me, so I'm happy with it. Prophaniti (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I have now added the IP 65.2.201.118, as the only contributions are reverts to the earlier version by the blocked editor.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  06:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't revert to any version. I just restored sources that were deleted. âPreceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.201.118 (talk) 06:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you did. You removed sources with that edit, reverting basically to the same version of the article as last edited by the blocked user.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  06:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No sources were removed. The statement that the band is described as hard rock was added, with a valid source. Please do not abuse your power as an editor. 65.10.58.87 (talk) 06:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Added in another IP, who's editing behavior is similar to the suspected sock master.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  06:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, as stated above by several others, a checkuser in this case is appropriate, as whether Ibranoff's block is increased or decreased hinges on whether or not this IP belongs to the aforementioned user, as editing while blocked is not allowed.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  05:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to Coren

Requested by —  Dæ dαlus Contribs  04:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

per WP:DUCK, as Lucas sates below the account is already blocked. Tiptoety talk 02:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Quack quack, blocked. Note that obvious cases don't need a checkuser investigation. -- lucasbfr  talk 10:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Page merged from Requests for checkuser/Case/Ibaranoff24 (page history). Tiptoety talk 21:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * the clerk is correct that the check is not useful or necessary. &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

the user appears to have agreed to cease socking, as a condition of an unblock. As such NFA required. Mayalld (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC) SPIclose Account blocked. Tiptoety talk 02:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * Per a request on my talk page, it appears there may be more forthcoming evidence to justify a checkuser being ran, as such I have removed the finished template. Tiptoety  talk 18:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser suggests it is extremely likely that most, if not all, of those IPs belong to Ibaranoff24. Ibaranoff24 emailed me to say he was accused of being user:Dayewalker. I checked him and he does not match Dayewalker. Raul654 (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * He must have screwed that up somehow. He's never been accused of being me, nor would I allow that allegation to float. Thanks for the CU anyway, though. Dayewalker (talk) 03:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Ibaranoff24 must have muddled something he read, I never saw anything like that. Thanks for running the CU, Raul. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, on re-reading his email, I think I might have made a mistake. (In my defense, his explanation isn't particularly clear on this point). He pointed me to this edit (a "recent reversion of an edit that is being attributed to a 'sock'"), and his description is technically correct, but easily misunderstood. He should have pointed me to this one from several minutes earlier - e.g, the one in which the sockpuppetry is alleged to have occurred. Raul654 (talk) 03:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh, no harm done. Confusing and far too detailed, but what about this case wasn't? Dayewalker (talk) 04:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Raul, can you please make an annotation to the ANI thread? Here is the link.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  03:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Raul, please run that check again, comparing the sockmaster and the new user Hedpefan59997, who registered a new account just after this report came back positive, and argued in favor of the sockmaster's edits.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  04:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have already done so. Raul654 (talk) 04:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the sockmaster was edit warring over the article Mudvayne and Hed PE. I suggest whoever has been involved in this case put both of those pages on your watchlist. Also, we can now note that Ibaranoff24 had a bias concerning the articles noted above, as his newested sock is Hed Fan. Either that, or he was just named it that to make it look like it was unrelated to him.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  04:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)