Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/James343e/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Talk:Rafael Nadal (No diffs required, its a fairly obvious issue near the bottom of the page.) A user was blocked for edit warring, the blocked user then edited on the talk page as as three different IP addresses and one new account. See as the first and only edit by a new account, I believe is the same person trying to open an argument. which they then commented on using multiple IP's, to try and gain a false consensus to back up their edits. (this issue was first noticed by other editors, but having commented that it should be investigated, I am now sending it here myself). &Alpha; Guy into Books &trade; &sect; ( Message ) -  12:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

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

I think that, particularly at that talk page (just fixed the link), the users' tones are all the same, which suggests to me that it's the same person. I also agree with Fyunck(click)'s point that the IPs including links suggests that they aren't new to the site, which is also suspicious.  4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)  12:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

OK so far User Aguyintobooks is has used this opportunity to open an SPI investigation suggesting I am a sock/meat puppet, this is highly tendicious to begin with. I don't understand the basis of the claim here where I have no prior interaction with said user on Wikipedia, given there are no diffs or anything else to suggest a similarity in editing style to a previously blocked user this claim seems to me to be extremely lofty. I suppose one cannot hurt themselves simply to investigate but this seems like a mighty fine way to waste an administrators time when I have nothing to do with said blocked user. I would suggest that using Wikipedia using a non-static IP is also not against the rules, but thank you for dredging up a laundry list of what my router has been doing lately. Among other common reasons for a new IP lease to occur include router instability, line instability, and simply either my router or ISP refreshing its lease on a new IP address. None of these are grounds to suspect that I am here as a sock/meat puppeteer. Nothing that I have added to the discussion on Talk:Rafael Nadal would suggest that I am logged out for the purposes of adding multiple spurious arguments to support the cause in that discussion either.

Meanwhile User Fyunck has merely used the talk page discussion in that thread to call me a "troll." User Fyunck has also used used the opportunity in the discussion to charge me with being a "moron" among other things. User Fyunck has also used this opportunity to revert/delete posts by myself and other users on the page Rafael Nadal and the talk page Talk:Rafael_Nadal. This is an extreme case of bad faith editing behavior. It is also bad faith to bring it to the point of having an SPI where there is no evident cause for this investigation other than to waste everyone time. At best case scenario User Fyunck should be severely reprimanded for the bad faith claims associated with this SPI. At worst case this will lead me to raising this as an ANI in the near future as a counter claim to this severe case of bad faith and incivility leading to a possibility of a block on the account of user Fyunck. I leave this point comment here to highlight an extreme case of incivility, a waste of time, and the general distrust of IP editors who are only humans anyhow. The use of reverts to silence other people's rights to discussion is a severe misuse of editing habits and is a ground to be called up under edit warring should it continue. User Fyunck has been reminded that IPs are also humans, and that users are also IPs, I hope this serves as a reminder about an extremely offensive case of bad faith where other editors are not welcomed to edit on Wikipedia. It is also a general infraction of the general principle of Wikipedia that anyone can edit regardless of whether they have an account or otherwise (being banned/blocked not withstanding).

On the case in point directly:

1) I have nothing to do with user James343e. 2) While you could accuse someone of multi-IPing as being a sock, such claims must be tempered by the facts that its the modern nature of the internet to use non-static IPs. In this case it has nothing to do with socking, I'm sorry. Even users have multiple IPs also and this has nothing to do with concealing multiple viewpoints as a sock. 3) I have no intention of socking anyone here. I wish the accusatory parties would cease and desist with these frivolous claims that are wasting the time of everybody here. 4) an alignment in any point of view is not indicative of being a sock, it just means in one instance two people show a similiar point of view -_- If anything a subversive consensus on a point of view would be indicative of a meat/sock puppeteer trying to align a point of view argument. Given A) the attested view would appear to be in the minority and B) There are no similarities in editing style, location, or any form of identification (I don't even know who James343e is) there is even less evidence of sock/meat puppetry.

I would like for any of the counter claimants to please provide any diffs, or any other types of evidence forward, that there are any indicative  similarities between myself and what user James343e so ever... I will assure you that there will be no evidence to support that claim out of hand. --2001:8003:645C:9200:B541:B9D1:32:96CF (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * If you actually paid attention to what's going on around you, you'd find that Fyunck(click) didn't even start this SPI.  4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)  00:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Whatever the case maybe his assertions led to this point. --2001:8003:645C:9200:1C3D:F0D0:3440:E85F (talk) 02:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey, I have my suspicions, too – I'm the only other person who's commented to this point.  4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)  02:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Well here's something interesting then instead. Given that I have never been dragged before this whole process I am not sure at this point who I should be addressing. That should clarify about enough why I might not actually be what you're claiming I am. --120.154.164.83 (talk) 02:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Anyone can be brought into this process for the first time and not know what to do/who to address.  4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)  02:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Aguyintobooks is the user who began this investigation, so any comments or defences should be mostly directed at him. I've only commented on what I think based on what I've seen.  4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)  02:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Righto then, please provide some sort of evidence, editing habits, use of language, tone, diffs, whatever that would suggest I am in any way connected to the now blocked user. If you take the time to read the essay surrounding the nature of IPs being humans also as was linked previously you would see that a user without a static IP does not make a sock nor does it make meat either. IP address changes happen frequently for whatever reason, you just don't see it happen on your account because you happen to be logged in. IPs are humans also... We are even less anonymous than what you are -_- Further to the point there is nothing to suggest that my edits in that discussion that are suggestive of me being a sock or meat puppeteer. You would otherwise notice los of colourful language such as "yes me too, and me three, and oh me over here also I support this idea..." Given the lack of this behavior characteristic of sock or meet puppetry the claim I am either of the above seems rather tenuous and quite frivolous at the same time and a good waste of everyone's time here including my own.  --2001:8003:645C:9200:A0B2:29F4:8BAC:8F48 (talk) 06:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * James343e isn't currently blocked. What interests me, however, is the fact that he hasn't made any edits, logged in, for three days – while he only edits infrequently and in small blocks when logged in, I'm not sure if they're the only edits that he's making.  4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)  06:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Since we're already verging on Privacy anyway I don't particularly care. There is not much to account for here. That IP V4 address is my own on a now defunct network. A magical thing happened in Australia called the NBN. I have provided you with some literature in the preceding sentence that describes the whole process quite well enough. See what happens is when you get an NBN connection they send you out a new router. While its interesting that I am now using an IPV6 address, I guess it's nothing unusual in terms of updating network practices. I could probably fiddle around and change back to an IPV4 address but there's no need to prove a point each IP address will resolve to the same network in various locations where the GPONs are for the fibre nodes I am now connecting through.


 * I digress Where I am going here is that a change in ones IP address is not grounds for claims of sock puppeteers, or sock farms. I have NO IDEA who this other person is, but I am sure that you would much prefer to waste admins times here where they could be dealing with more relevant work with a frivolous SPI. I don't blame you, I'm just saying. Go back a page and read through some of the other SPIs and see how much of a waste of time this whole investigation is by comparison to some of them. You will be amazed.


 * The process of why I have a new IPV6 address is quite self explanatory really. There is an entirely new FTTN/FTTP mixed copper/coax/fibre/Satellite/4G LTE telephone network being rolled out across Australia. It wont be unusual to see a raft of new IPs come through from Australia at all over the coming months/years. This is also NOT grounds for calling me a sock/meat puppet what it does represent is the general verge towards IPV6 for many reasons. Some include freeing up IPV4 address spaces for other purposes, some involve more modern network practices. The crux of all of that either way is that it it is nothing "extremely suspicious."


 * It's all quite mundane really, including this very post. --2001:8003:645C:9200:A0B2:29F4:8BAC:8F48 (talk) 07:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You don't need to explain the process (particularly to me – I also live in Australia, and I wasn't able to edit for a nine-day period in March when getting NBN). Might I suggest creating an account so that you can avoid this kind of discussion and we can finish your involvement in this discussion right now?  4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)  08:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I have no idea whether this is a waste of time or not, I have no way of seeing what IP addresses James343e and/or Abhisetia use, that is what a checkuser is for. If they turn out to be unrelated to you (assuming all these IPv6 addresses are the same person who is being assigned dynamic IP's) then that's fine, you won't have a problem. If they originate from the 2001:8000::/20 network, then perhaps some behavioral analysis could be used to investigate further. There is sufficient argument (mainly from Fyunck(click)) to have a reasonable suspicion. &Alpha; Guy into Books &trade;  &sect; ( Message ) -  08:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I have no interest what so ever in editing in the spaces that James343e is interested in, particularly Christiano Ronaldo among other things LOL... Just because a persons opinion happens to have a minor alignment in one instance does not mean that they are a sock/meat farmer. I'm sorry, I can understand that "you have no idea" that much is obvious. On the other hand I must strenuously address the fact that I do not know who James343e and I have no interest in knowing who he/she/it is altogether. While I have some interest in football (soccer) our general interests are polls apart and you will find no reference to me ever being in the same editing space until this whole incident took place. You are barking up the wrong tree.


 * Meanwhile user Fyunck has continued to liberally assert I am a troll. I would kindly ask that he/she/it desists from this behavior or else I will have to (also on the basis of this negative SPI) use it as a good case to haul Fyunck up before an ANI discussion --2001:8003:645C:9200:68C9:3BF0:2D55:1236 (talk) 12:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * If you have an ongoing problem like this, you might seriously consider creating a user account. &Alpha; Guy into Books &trade;  &sect; ( Message ) -  12:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I'm closing this with no action. The common position of these accounts/IP's, that Rafael Nadal is the greatest tennis player of all time, seems to have a fair amount traction in the tennis world. As such, it doesn't seem totally unreasonable for there to be more than person aggressively advocating that position on Wikipedia. That the IP's are the same person is pretty obvious, but that of course is not sockpuppetry, given that most internet connections use dynamic IP addresses these days. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Tonegents took over the edit warring at Placebo when James343 got a 3RR warning, and responded to a message on James343e's talkpage as though it was to him. Natureium (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2018 (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

 * ❌ it's this guy. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)