Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MoonMetropolis/Archive

02 October 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

The article The Oregonian (film) was added today, and as a part of the article review process I added improvement tags to the article stating that the it did not cite any sources, and due to it's not citing any sources, the page might not be notable. Immediately afterwards an IP address popped up to revert my addition of the tags, claiming that the external link to critic indexing sites below should mean neither tag were valid. After reverting this change, a different IP address popped up with the same argument, as if they were the same person. I added a message to the talk page suggesting to them that they should add the sources they claim exist, to the article, but instead they've simply reverted with the same or similar messages. I'm fairly sure that there is no way that IP addresses would suddenly pop up accidentally to defend a brand new article, posted by a relatively new user. I'm concerned that the user is using IP-addresses to attack other editors and make reversions instead of just using their main account.

In addition, I have found common page edits between 76.106.245.93 and the sockmaster at Sun Don't Shine, showing they've previously been linked. Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC) Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, this is beyond pathetic. I'm sockpuppeting... with IP addresses?  Do you have any idea how this site works or what its policies are?  Judging by your edits on The Oregonian (film) and the fact that you opened a sockpuppet investigation into my "sockpuppeting" with IP addresses, I'm going to have to assume that the answer is "no".--MoonMetropolis (talk) 05:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Please see the final point of Sock_puppetry. 2) You are supposed to reply in the section below, not in this text space. Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

After this investigation was requested, the IP addresses increased their rhetoric to including quite uncivil language. Eventually the sockmaster resumed an identical line of rhetoric that the IP-addresses had been using and, I believe, has not denied the sockpuppetry accusation, even trying to use it to taunt other users--for example, here. Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2013 (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

 * - because this would result in the public connection of accounts and IP addresses. Rschen7754 03:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * did you decide not to take action on this case? --Rschen7754 23:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I blocked the account for edit warring after seeing the report at AN3, and it looks like he's currently blocked for another reason. I wasn't inclined to increase the block because of apparent logged out editing though, since he seems to have stopped that after his first block, unless I'm missing something. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, just be sure to indicate that next time. --Rschen7754 23:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Will do, thanks for being patient with me. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)