Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KevinPR82/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The named account was created in 2013, but did not make its first edit until 25 minutes after the third IP was blocked. The third IP will be stale and is only listed to suggest a pattern of block evasion and because it might be appropriate to move Sockpuppet investigations/73.60.41.24 archives to this report as a housekeeping measure.

The general behavioral pattern is repeated attempts to add similar unsourced content to the same articles.
 * Rest area: account, IP1, IP2
 * List of paradoxes: account, IP1 1st entry, IP1 2nd entry

The named account resumed activity following a years hiatus, two days after the first IP was blocked. I have not requested chechuser because I think timing and behavior patterns are sufficiently demonstrated. BiologicalMe (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, the second IP restored an unsourced paragraph to which the first and third IP contributed. More than one half of all edits by the second IP have occurred during the time the first IP was blocked, starting the same day. BiologicalMe (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear BiologicaMe:

Hello, this is the suspected sockpuppet talking. Yes, I do have a tendency to use multiple accounts. One of them is KevinPR82, and the other is anonymous which goes with whatever IP address I am currently present. Normally, this is only two at a time. However, I did move from a prior location in August 2019 and spent two weeks at a different location from June 21 - July 5 before returning to my current location that afternoon. These decisions to relocate were made independently of my admitted hobby of editing Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and Wikihow. I do tend to be very opinionated in what I think should and should not be listed in various articles. I do understand how my using different accounts can give the false impression that there is more support for a certain position than there actually is. Having said that, none of my accounts have actually been blocked by Wikipedia in recent weeks. If you would like me to use one only once account consistently from now on, I could do that. In the short run, this would be KevinPR82, although I may actually change it to something more anonymous since my current user name is a match of my AOL E-mail account.

Regards, KevinPR82 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.48.211 (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Recent weeks is a bit vague and qualifying "by Wikipedia" was odd. The first IP was blocked on Wiktionary on July 5. The same IP was blocked on Wikipedia for two weeks starting June 20, which coincides with the "two weeks at a different location". In my book, that is still "recent weeks". BiologicalMe (talk) 15:23, 15 July 2020 (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
This probably requires a check user for potential sleeper accounts. For now I am going to issue a warning given the user's confession above. It's possible they may not understand our PAG regarding multiple accounts and editing while logged out. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, that was an interesting case. I'm going to leave this be without any further action, since the editor has gotten a nice stern warning about logged-out editing, but if it happens again a block is in order. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

At the last SPI, the result was a warning. There has been no change in behavior. I might have contacted the closing admin (again}, but in the interim, the editor changed the account name. The new name prompted me to bring the case here. Although the name change had been discussed previously, but I am not certain it was executed in good faith since it came ten days after an IP block at Wiktionary. I don't know if this qualifies as relevant to Wikipedia, but the account is editing Wiktionary while the IP remains blocked. At the minimum it tilts the interpretation of behavior towards a tendency to game the system. During an older SPI case, Sockpuppet investigations/73.60.41.24/Archive, the involved, but no longer active, IP left an unsigned reply to the SPI notice on the editor's page. I am inclined to believe that this is just extreme indifference to policy rather than calculated gaming, but I have my doubts. The creation of the account in 2013 and first edit in 2019, just after an associated IP was blocked for persistent additions of unsourced content leaves me on the fence between opportunistic switching to a previously set up and almost forgotten account and planning. Whether the behavior is willful or ignorant, it is disruptive and has been going on for years without change.

Despite numerous warnings, the pattern of only logging in only to edit semi-protected articles continues: Moses, Christopher Columbus, James Madison, and more. Juneteenth was the most flagrant example with IP edits before semi-protection was added and account edits after. Four days ago, I sent a warning to the account reiterating the problems and linked to it at the IP talk page. This subsequent IP edit prompted this SPI report. BiologicalMe (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Yes, both of those names are mine. Also, I'll be moving addresses for a new IP address in the near future, and this decision has nothing to do with any Wikipedia investigation. I didn't realize that logging into my Wikipedia name only to edit semi-protected articles was problematic, but I'll try to remember this in the future. I don't know at this time what my new IP address will be next month, but I'll own up if and when it comes up again.

Signed (KCassidy888) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.48.211 (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I'm not convinced there's any violation of WP:ILLEGIT, or WP:LOGOUT. The later says, Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors, such as by directly saying that they do not have an account or by using the session for the inappropriate uses of alternative accounts.  I don't think what they're doing is best practice, but we block people for policy violations, not best practice violations.  I guess people are arguing that they're "Avoiding scrutiny", but given that they're using a very small number of apparently static IPs and they've not hiding the fact that they're doing so, I think that would be a tenuous argument.  I'll leave this open for somebody else to look at, but that's my opinion. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I would argue that if an IP editor's activity contributes to a semi-protection, logging in after is comparable to block evasion. If semi-protection is an alternative to blocking, it should follow logically. There were several warnings to the IP prior to semi-protection directly tied to the reason for the protection. The account was first used for block evasion as noted at the top of the archived case. I did not detect the multiple editing sources through disclosures; it was through similar disruptive edits from two IPs and an account. BiologicalMe (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to close this with no action taken, but, you expressed the opinion in 13 July 2020 that what was going on would merit a block, so I'd like to hear your arguments before I do anything. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * At this point, the IP hasn't edited in 6 weeks, so I'm just going to close this. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)