Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nenpog/Archive

03 July 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Policy: Improper uses of multiple Wikipedia user accounts include attempts to mislead other editors and avoid sanctions. Avoiding scrutiny: I often work at COIN. In closing a 28 June 2012 COIN request by Nenpog, I limited what I wrote because I believed that Nenpog was a relatively new editor and deserved some deference (e.g. per WP:BITE). On later looking into the matter, it appears that Nenpog has run a successive of series of accounts into the ground, switching from one to the next when the reputation of an account is tarnished via warnings etc. Had the talk pages of the four accounts all been on one talk page, for example, I would have been clearer on who was behind the account. I feel like I was mislead because Nenpog's edits and responses to those edits are spread over four accounts. My concern is that there may be other accounts that would additionally inform editors who they are dealing with when dealing with Nenpog. Other accounts: In addressing the blocking of one of Nepong's accounts, admin EdJohnson noted, "Since mid-April, under a variety of IPs you have continued to try to force your new thinking into the X-ray computed tomography article." None of the four accounts identified by Nenpog go back as far as mid-April, so there are other accounts that could give a clearer picture and make it less likely that other editors will be mislead. Circumventing sanctions: In any event, Nepong's User 79.182.199.172 account was blocked 24 hours, from 04:17, 20 June 2012 to 04:16, 21 June 2012. Nepong then avoided the block and detection by creating new account to begin editing during the 24 hour block at 01:49, 21 June 2012. Request: In sum, a complete list of accounts used by Nepong via checkuser will help others counter Nepong's avoiding scrutiny, circumventing sanctions, etc. Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Looks like a clear case of DUCK. All the IP editors and the named account are interested in the same very narrow field, pushing for the same result: CT Scans Are Bad. The Nenpg account was created during the block of one of the IPs, an example of evading the block. Binksternet (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * as checkusers will not reveal information which links named accounts and IPs. IPs are not accounts. Please refer to this reference. This case will need to be decided on behavioral evidence.

Assuming that the IPs have not edited since June, I see no purpose in blocking at this point. Marking as closed with no action taken. --MuZemike 23:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

21 July 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets

No doubt about these:

These are strongly suspected, but not proven:




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Harassment of editors and admins who were involved with blocking Nenpog.

See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

I think this is probably too large a range for a rangeblock, but at least we can apply one month blocks to the actual IPs he uses to make his sockpuppetry a bit harder to do. Guy Macon (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

RangebBlock now in place. MuZemike has rangeblocked 109.65.192.0/18 and 79.182.192.0/18 for two weeks.

Perhaps someone should contact Bezeq International (abuse@bezeqint.net) and tell them that abuse by one of their users just got 32,768 of their IP addresses blocked from accessing Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Nenpog, if this is you doing these things, I just want to say, I'm incredibly disappointed in your actions. Regardless of everything else, you assured me personally that you would respect the decision of the community. Regardless of any other factors, this community decided and that decision stands. If you are not behaving in a respectful fashion now, you've entirely lost any respect I might have been able to have for you. I ask you to honor the wishes of the community and stop, otherwise, I have nothing left but disappointment and contempt for you. -- Avanu (talk) 01:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I've blocked a good portion of these previously, Tim C already semi-protected ANI. We can't range block here, way too much collateral damage as we are talking a couple different Class B networks involved.  A couple of these are coming off blocks.  It is one person who just rotates to a new IP, so blocking the IPs for more than a couple of hours is useless, and only damages others. This is one of those times when you just have to whack-a-troll one by one, unfortunately.  Nothing else can be done here. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  19:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

12 October 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Nenpog was topic banned from all edits involving medical imaging and ionizing radiation in July 2012. The topic ban arose from his particularly persistent, tendentious approach; he believed that Wikipedia's coverage of ionizing radiation in medical imaging wasn't sufficiently alarmist, and took something of an IDHT approach to talk page discussions that expressed concerns over WP:WEIGHT and the applicability of WP:MEDRS.

Nenpog was blocked indefinitely about a week later for violation of his topic ban, disruptive editing, and filing a vexatious ArbCom case. He has persisted in attempting to evade the block, most recently returning a couple of days ago as 85.250.69.235 to edit war at. (I blocked 85.250.69.235 for a gross 3RR violation, but didn't realize the connection to Nenpog until another editor pointed out this extensive SPI archive.) X-ray computed tomography was semiprotected by another administrator in response to this most recent ban evasion. Note that 85.250 was identified as a sock based on behavior and on rough geolocation of the IP, and not by checkuser magic pixie dust. (85.250 and Nenpog's CU-confirmed socks of a couple of months ago both edit from Israeli ISPs, though he seems to have changed ISPs for his most recent editing; it could be a home-versus-office/school thing, or he may have recently changed providers.)

At around the same time, Bob spagio goojio got involved in the topic. In just 2 minutes on October 3, he made his first three edits with that account: one to Talk:X-ray computed tomography, one to bluelink his userpage, and one to bluelink his talk page. It's not exactly an approach that says 'new editor', but I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt.

Come this morning, the new Nick Ericsson account was created. Once again, his first three edits were to bluelink his user page, to bluelink his talk page, and to post a comment at Talk:X-ray computed tomography, this time in support of Bob spagio goojio (whose proposed edits had not gotten any other traction).

In their relatively short histories, neither Bob nor Nick have edited any other articles/talk pages. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Certainly suspicious behavior from two socks, meriting CU in my opinion. Binksternet (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This looks like an obvious WP:DUCK to me, but given the history of evasion attempts, I would also like to see a checkuser with the goal of identifying any other socks we may have missed. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Given the way that Bob spagio goojio waddled onto the talk page, quacking loudly about what was in the talk page archives, I'd taken it as a given from the start. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The IP change from Bezeq in Israel to NetVision in Israel may be related to abuse@bezeqint.net being informed that abuse by one of their users got 32,768 of their IP addresses blocked from accessing Wikipedia. That sort of abuse often results in the ISP nuking the account.


 * I believe that User:Nenpog, editing as (Bezeq) has successfully added his anti-CT material to Magnetic resonance imaging. Those edits have not been reverted; someone with expertise in this area should examine those edits.


 * Also interesting: this region of Israel is where several companies that manufacture magnetic resonance imaging equipment -- a competing technology that doesn't use X-Rays -- are located. We may have a COI issue here as well as the sockpuppeting. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Also look at . Tel Aviv IP interested in the same material. Binksternet (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Response: When I edited at other wiki sites I found blue links in signatures to be more aesthetic than red links. That is why I blue linked my own signature. Nick Ericsson (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * and are ✅ to be each other; the link with  is much less clear.  My first reflex would be to say they are technically unlikely to be the same editor, but the geographical proximity combined with the topic interest make it .  &mdash; Coren (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * TenOfAllTrades has blocked and tagged them all. De728631 (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)