Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Noisetier/Archive

14 September 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

User:Noisetier is an indef-blocked user who has admitted to being the same as User:Ceedjee on French wikipedia. He is now using a number of IPs to avoid his block and continue editing. Take a look at - Talk:Siege of Jerusalem (1948), and the edits of 81.247.37.163, 87.65.245.111, 87.66.182.246, 81.247.93.37, and on the article's page, edits by 81.247.68.185. It is obvious that this is Ceedjee/Noistier - same Belgium-based ISP, same English grammar mistakes, same old POV-push (battle vs. siege) that Ceejee/Alithien/Balagen has been driving since at least 2006 Foo Bar Buzz Netz (talk) 17:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

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

The indef block was placed at the request of the user, so even if this were true the proper response would be to unblock the account as the user does not wish to remain prohibited from editing. But does nobody else see the irony of an obvious sockpuppet attempting to punish others' supposed sockpuppetry? Do we really need this crap?  nableezy  - 17:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Prior to "retiring" and asking to be blocked, the user was warned he needs to leave the topic area, or be blocked. If he wants to be unblocked he needs to request it, and agree to leave the topic area. Foo Bar Buzz Netz (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The IPs appear to represent a user who has repeatedly been told there is a concern over a breach of WP:SOCK and has repeatedly "retired" only to return in breach of the exact same issue. If that identification is correct then regardless of the reporting user's own past (which is a bit of a distraction here), the IP user has been told formally and unconditionally that multiple Checkusers agree he is in breach of sock policy (in their view) and that he needs to comply with sock policy and disclose certain matters or cease editing the topic area of concern. He has consistently failed to make good and has also continued to edit the topic area knowing that Checkusers who reviewed his actions consider this a significant breach of sock policy. So action is probably reasonable now. FT2 (Talk 18:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * FT2 lies. I suggest any sysop takes contact with ArbCom before taking any action. 81.247.129.47 (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The emails on this are very clear on the functionaries list and can be verified by a number of functionaries active at the time. Arbcom was only involved on one point (as far as I know) - when told the background and asked whether they would consider taking over the case due to privacy issues. They replied that they didn't see a need to take the case over and confirmed the Functionaries team could handle the matter.


 * The functionaries email archives shows precisely as I stated above. Dates of relevant emails on request to any user with list access for verifying on the Functionaries list archives. FT2 (Talk 00:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Anyone but me then. Could you forward this email to me ? 91.180.145.58 (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Bleck, what a mess. Slightly less than half of the listed IPs here have edited in the past month. I've blocked 81.247.0.0/17, 87.65.238.71 and 91.180.120.246 for a week each. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

15 September 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Ike previous ones (from yesterday) - same ISP, same location, same edits as previous socks Foo Bar Buzz Netz (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

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

What both FBBZ and FT2 report is not true. I suggest that sysops take contact with Arbcom. 81.247.129.47 (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My reply to this is above. FT2 (Talk 00:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you forward the email of the Arbcom to me ? 91.180.145.58 (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The only thing that FBBZ has ever done in Wikipedia is to display a pathological obsession with Noisetier, including running around reverting Noisetier's edits and generally wasting the time of other editors. If FBBZ had been kicked out when this disruption started, none of the rest of this would have been necessary. Noisetier was not the sock of any previous account with current sanctions, blocks or other such issues (but had some expired sanctions like nearly all experienced editors in the I-P area have had). Noisetier did not seek to gain an advantage from the use of an extra name, in fact there were months between uses of the previous name and the new name. FT2 believes Noisetier should have publicly revealed his previous identity, but Noisetier has a substantial personal reason for not doing that which FT2 chooses to discount. After discussing the details with Noisetier privately, I have no reason to doubt these concerns. Another admin, whose name FT2 knows, also agreed that there is "a valid reason for minimising public exposure". The mere existence of people with psychopathic behavior like FBBZ is support of Noisetier's concerns. It should be enough if Arbcom knows of Noisetier's former username, which I understand it already does. The way to solve this is (1) allow Noisetier to have a new username with full private disclosure of his past to arbcom, (2) warn FBBZ that outing will be treated harshly and then block it as a disruptive SPA. Zerotalk 06:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Almost fully confirm this, but some important exceptions. I place the cause long ago. A clear close to the case should have happened one way or the other in 2010, when Checkusers agreed there was an issue, and Noisetier was 'lawyering.


 * That's not an idle statement. Emails from Noisetier included threats to sock and be a "wikiterrorist", claims of harassment with evidence links that didn't actually show harassment when examined, and claims of bad faith against another user for which evidence was quickly requested and action promised if justified, but Noisetier didn't send any evidence. Noisetier had also lied to users on-wiki (as Noisetier he claimed he had only "contributed with IPs" when asked if he had a prior account and claimed he only edited for 1 year when it was much longer), engaged in a quick return to disturbing conduct in the exact same old topic area within weeks of creating his new account, and then denied editing on the I-P conflict and tried to argue that his editing history wasn't on WP:ARBPIA topics anyway. Since a quick check showed he had edited extensively on the Mandate era, Palestinian refugee related topics, events affecting Palestinians in the 1948 wars, current Israel-related articles affecting Palestinians, and hard core I-P topics from 1948 to 2000, his previous edits weren't outside ARBPIA as he claimed. They were central to it.


 * By contrast the user operating the FBBN account provided valid high quality behavioral evidence via diffs and had followed proper dispute resolution by taking them to Checkusers. The evidence was pretty conclusive, and resulted in a Checkuser consensus that disclosure per WP:SOCK of past activity in the topic area was very obviously required.


 * It's now 2011 and things have moved on a bit. We know more detail now, the FBBN account has been created and FBBN has also stated he will let it "fade into oblivion". Zero has stated there were other reasons to believe harassment would occur if disclosure was made, which is fine, but remember that the replies and evidence for the Functionaries list discussion from Noisetier looked very much like classic examples of gaming, lawyering, and claims lacking evidence.


 * I agree with Zero that Noisetier may wish to pick a new account. He should do this via the Functionaries team and ask them what he needs to do and whether there are privacy or scrutiny/disclosure issues to address, because Arbcom have already stated any privacy related issues should be passed to the functionaries team. Noisetier should also follow their suggested resolutions this time not ignore them, or else he may be blocked. If they decided that he needs to either stop editing the topic area or disclose on-wiki then he needs to actually choose one of those two. He should also note the warnings at WP:SOCK and WP:CLEANSTART about returning to old topic areas under new accounts since nobody can protect him against detection by other users if he edits the same topic area. As for FBBN, he has said his account will "fade into obscurity" and we will see what happens. If it doesn't then action could be taken by anyone. His alternative is to discuss a good-faith way back. I would not be quick to describe him as "pathological", but time will tell. Obviously we know more now than we did then. FT2 (Talk 12:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Frankly I don't know why FBBZ hasn't been blocked already. A sock-puppet SPA whose only purpose is to strike out other editors' comments? WTF? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I'm going to close this for now. The IPs are a few days stale, and I'm not really convinced of the connection. There are clearly other issues here, so those should be handled accordingly. As a side note, I'm not going to block Foo Bar just based on their opening of this case. If you think they're a sock, relist them under the master and we'll handle it. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

11 October 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Same ISP and geographic location as previously blocked IP-socks of Noisetier (e.g : 91.180.120.246, 81.247.0.0/17) – see HelloyAnnyong’s comment here: Same set of articles edited by Noisetier and his numerous IP socks, repeating the same points that Noiseteir and previous IP socks were making Noisteir : “Historians refer to that period with the name "1948 Palestine War"
 * Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War
 * 1948 Arab–Israeli War ‎
 * Talk:1948 Palestine war

81.247.93.126 : “historians (coming from all sides...) refer to the events from November '47 to mid-49 to the 1948 Palestine War/War for Palestine.” Same grammatical errors indicating a non-native English speaker + an indication that this user is French speaking and editing on French Wikipedia, like Noisetier:, Foo Bar Buzz Netz (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Talk:The Invention of the Jewish People

User:Marokwitz has also notes this obvious sock - see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foo Bar Buzz Netz (talk • contribs) 19:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

With regards to the claim that the sockmaster is not currently blocked, please see comments from Administrator FT2, in the previous Noisetier SP case: "the IP user has been told formally and unconditionally that multiple Checkusers agree he is in breach of sock policy (in their view) and that he needs to comply with sock policy and disclose certain matters or cease editing the topic area of concern. He has consistently failed to make good and has also continued to edit the topic area knowing that Checkusers who reviewed his actions consider this a significant breach of sock policy. So action is probably reasonable now" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foo Bar Buzz Netz (talk • contribs) 19:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the claims that “The user has not edited with multiple accounts or IPs in any way that violates the policy, “’ - that is a plain falsehood, an outright lie.

Noisetier was blocked from June 8 until 16:01, 10 October 2011. While he was still blocked, he used these IP accounts to make the following edits:


 * 2 edits as 81.247.169.98 on 9 October


 * 2 edits as 81.247.93.126 on 9 October


 * 2 edits as 81.247.183.106 on 7 October


 * 2 edits as 91.180.207.119 at around 06:20 on 10 October

At a minimum, that’s 8 edits using 4 different IPs to evade the block. That should be grounds for a lengthy, possibly indef block on the sockmaster.

If and when this matter is taken to AN/I, as suggested by User:FT2, some attention will need to be given to the disruptive efforts of meatpuppets like Nableezy who are using outright dishonesty in an attempt to enable this socking to continue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foo Bar Buzz Netz (talk • contribs) 20:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

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


 * this is a 18 month long harashment. 81.247.176.156 (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Noiseter is not blocked or otherwise banned, and a user is not required to log in to edit. Why has the obvious sock here (Foo Bar Buzz Netz) not blocked?  nableezy  - 19:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not a "claim" that Noiseter is not blocked or otherwise banned. It is a fact that anybody who checks the user's block log can see.  nableezy  - 19:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Marokwitz I agree with the nominator. See previous case Sockpuppet investigations/Noisetier/Archive. This user apparently has at least three previous accounts (Ceejee, Alithien, Balagen). This obviously a significant and repeated breach of sock policy, and now the user is editing anonymously to evade his promise to cease editing. The IPs represent a user who has repeatedly been told there is a concern over a breach of WP:SOCK and has repeatedly "retired" only to return in breach of the exact same issue. Administrator FT2 also wrote some very disturbing facts about this user, such as "Emails from Noisetier included threats to sock and be a "wikiterrorist"" Marokwitz (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just saying something does not make it so. The user is under no obligation to "cease editing", and none of the listed past accounts is currently subject to any editing restriction. Can anybody say what restriction this user is violating by not logging in to edit? Last I checked we still allowed IPs to edit here.  nableezy  - 20:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This user stated (a statement which still appears on his page) that he doesn't contribute to wp:en and is deceiving other editors by continuing to edit under anonymous addresses.
 * Motion to closing admin: I request that as part of this SPI case all previous accounts, including User:Noisetier, User:Ceedjee, User:Alithien, as well as the IP addresses are blocked as obvious sockpuppets to put an end to this story once and for all. The IP user has already been told formally and unconditionally that multiple Checkusers agree he is in breach of sock policy. The user has threatened to sock and be a "wikiterrorist". We should not allow this unacceptable behavior to continue. Marokwitz (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The only unacceptable thing happening here is the way an obvious sockpuppet is allowed to continue, as their only edits, harassing another user who is not blocked or banned. There is absolutely zero justification for the blocking of any of the accounts here, none of them are "sockpuppets". The user is not abusing anything, instead he is being harassed by an obvious sockpuppet of a banned user who has made as their only purpose on this project with this username hounding a user that is in good standing here. The user is not blocked or otherwise restricted from editing. Unless there is a sanction that this user is obligated to only edit while logged in the user is not violating anything. We all know who he is, so this whinging about "avoiding scrutiny" is baseless. "Avoiding scrutiny" is creating an account for the sole purpose of hounding another editor. I still cannot wrap my head around how you people are just sitting here nodding along with FBBN as he preaches from the mountain tops, enlightening us to the evils of sock puppetry to avoid scrutiny. One more time: the user is not blocked or banned. Under any account. And there is no basis for a block or ban for any account.  nableezy  - 21:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please stay on topic. If you believe another editor is violating policies, file a new SPI case, this is totally irrelevant to the evidence presented here. Noisetier/Ceedjee/Alithien is using of multiple accounts to deceive or mislead other editors. Sock clearly says, "Editing logged out in order to mislead: Editing under multiple IP addresses may be treated the same as editing under multiple accounts where it is done deceptively or otherwise violates the above principles. Having posted on his talk page that he is no longer active on the english Wikipedia, along with off-wiki email messages presented as evidence are clear proof that this user is intentionally trying to deceive. If a person is found to be using a sock puppet, the policy is to block ll the sock puppet accounts indefinitely. There is consensus among multiple Checkusers that the user has violated the sock policy after receiving clear and repeated warnings. I cannot imagine a reason why he shouldn't be blocked. Marokwitz (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Uhh, it isnt being done deceptively. Who and how is the user deceiving by editing as an IP? The user's talk page no longer says the user is not active, anything else? Most people do not control whether or not they have a static IP or a dynamic one, so the reference to multiple IPs is specious. You wrote if a person is found to be using a sock puppet ... None of the accounts are "sockpuppets". That is why none of them should be blocked. If there someone wants to propose a formal restriction that this person edit only while logged in that can be done in the appropriate place. As it is, no accounts associated with the person is currently subject to any editing restriction, and the person is not currently obligated to edit while logged in. The user has not edited with multiple accounts or IPs in any way that violates the policy, and no evidence of that has ever been brought. Is there any evidence of attempting to manipulate consensus, edit-warring with multiple IPs, or anything else that is actually a breach of the policy? Because if not, this remains a banned editor continue his years long harassment of an editor in good standing who is not restricted from editing as an IP.  nableezy  - 22:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:SCRUTINY is about 4 lines long here. Go read it and understand it's not optional. Other editors have a right to know if someone has previously edited on a topic, and if so their past editing, warning, block, or sanctions record. A user who switches between accounts, then threatens to switch to IPs or sock, lies about his past when asked directly on-wiki if he has an account, and then gives the impression by another misleading announcement to fellow editors that he is not active on wp:en (one can WP:LAWYER the account isn't but the individual is) only to return as an apparently unrelated dynamic IP, is not giving them the ability to do this. FT2 (Talk 13:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your condescending tone does not help your argument. I am familiar with that policy, thank you very much. You have repeatedly made these claims of lying and evading scrutiny but when asked for a diff of the user actually lying you produce one where the user provides an incomplete, but honest, response. Whereas the user who you have no problem with socking has repeatedly lied about his past activities. Funny how that works out. But back to the point, a user does not determine if their ISP provides them with a static or dynamic address, so claiming that the user is return[ing] as an apparently unrelated dynamic IP is at the least an attempt at misdirection and at worst an outright attempt at deception. There is nothing WP:SCRUTINY that requires a user to not edit from an IP. Nothing.  nableezy  - 13:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * FT2, you seem to have missed the link in SCRUTINY, namely SCRUTINY, that under the label "privacy" explicitly permits the use of a sock in this case. Zerotalk 14:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Haven't missed a thing. They have a different focus. WP:SOCK says that if you edit topics that are controversial or may expose you to attacks, you can use a different account than your usual one to edit those topics. It says nothing about having a right to avoid disclosure for multiple such accounts. WP:SOCK says that whatever accounts or IPs you use to edit any given topic, other editors have the right to know your past on that topic (so they can identify patterns in it, know any past issues where you were discussed, etc).


 * WP:Clean start (policy) adds that nobody is forcing any user to edit any topic or page and users with that concern are warned repeatedly their privacy may not be protected. But if he does insist on editing it, despite the privacy issue, then Checkuser and policy consensus both say he must provide appropriate disclosure so fellow editors are not misled, and that failure to do so may be seen as deceptive or negatively; if unwilling and very concerned for safety, he should not edit the topic.


 * In summary, if privacy matters then don't edit the topic (nobody's forcing him). If editing matters more than privacy then accept past accounts will be identified by users based on his style and also disclose past activity. If he wants both then find a way to disclose and act properly that does not involve concealing or misleading, and get consensus from uninvolved users that it is acceptable and won't mislead new I-P editors who may not know he had previous accounts/IPs. FT2 (Talk 15:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment/suggested resolution: I would suggest at this point that the matter is becoming disruptive and should be settled, as it should have been months ago, and that Marokwitz should take this case to the administrators' incidents noticeboard to ask for a decision on handling. The points that should be noted at ANI are: To my mind this will resolve the dispute by ensuring it is clear what Noisetier should do. Noisetier and friends will also have a fair opportunity in that venue, to put their case. FT2 (Talk 22:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) The past history, including notes on the SPI archive page, showing Noisetier has threatened to sock, has lied about his past history in the I-P area both on-wiki to other editors (IPs only, and for a year only) and in email to a Checkuser (only edited mandate, didn't contribute to I-P topic area), has told other editors he was leaving editing I-P and claimed prominently "this account" is "inactive" only to secretly return using a dynamic IP shortly after.
 * 2) The use of dynamic IPs (not for the first time) as threatened in 2010, and history of switching accounts/IPs with refusal to follow Checkuser consensus regarding WP:SOCK/WP:SCRUTINY
 * 3) Noisetier and ally nableezy's raising of FBBN as a reason why no action is needed - this is a smokescreen since 1/ it doesn't impact what Noisetier should do, 2/ the account is relatively benign, being used only to note Noisetier's breach of WP:SOCK when Noisetier does so, and going idle otherwise. (Concerns over FBBN should be separately addressed and not conflated).
 * 4) Policy requirements to not use multiple accounts, or accounts and IPs, to mislead or deceive other editors + key cites.
 * 5) Consensus is requested that Noisetier should be told to edit through one account only, and not through multiple accounts or dynamic IPs, and that he should disclose on his user page that he has had a previous account and IP history in the I-P area, including blocks (and what those blocks were for), for other I-P editors, per WP:SCRUTINY. This does not breach any privacy he may be concerned about.
 * I am not raising FBBN as a reason why no action is needed, please do not do that. I am saying that regardless of whether or not the person is using an account or an IP, it is unbelievable to me that a banned editor is allowed to continue socking with sole aim of hounding another user. Now I dont know if FBBN is NoCal or not, but it is obvious that the user is a sock whose only contribution has been to hound Noisetier. I still dont understand how you can just look at a sock made to avoid scrutiny say that so and so is a sock account avoiding scrutiny as if you were in some sort of hypnotic trance. I am not aware of a diff of the user saying he had only edited as an IP and only for a year and that diff does not appear in the archives. If that diff can be produced that may change my mind, but right now the only thing that should happen is that FBBN be blocked an obvious sock hounding another person out of spite.  nableezy  - 23:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your diff. Q: "Have you ever used a prior account on Wikipedia?" Noisetier: I contributed with IP's during 1 year. Hope this helps." (Sept 2010) This was Noisetier's 18th edit under that account, 8 days after it was created.
 * FT2 (Talk 23:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That was true at the time. It did not answer the question, but was accurate. That diff is not what you quoted. Is there a diff where the user actually denies using an account? (And, just as an aside, look who is asking that question in the provided diff, one of many NoCal socks)  nableezy  - 00:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It was untrue - a lie - as you obviously know and he knew. Let's not try to wikilawyer it, Nableezy. "It was true at the time" is nonsense. When asked if you have an account and you say "well I used an IP", that's deceiving other users. He was asked if he had a past account and he posted a reply intended to mislead all other users that he had not had one, and had only edited for a year. FT2 (Talk 10:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it was not a lie. I cant say I remember the exact time line, but IIRC the user had in fact only been editing as an IP for a year. The user did not say he did not have any prior accounts, he said he had been editing as an IP for a year. Is there a diff where the user actually denies having prior accounts? Sort of like this? Because that would be a lie. Made by a liar. Who is again socking.  nableezy  - 12:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Noisetier is not a banned user. In fact he would like to be a normal contributor with a normal account that is not connectable to his real identity. He has a very legitimate reason for being sensitive about outing. His wish to be a normal anonymous editor is repeatedly thwarted by the disruptive psychopath called FBBN and by a certain unsympathetic admin. Why is FBBN still here? Zerotalk 23:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Zero, if he were not playing games, and had met inquiries with evidence rather than clear dishonesty, then he would find me more sympathetic. He has had numerous chances - and indeed has been asked - to sort this out appropriately (which would have been quite easy to make good faith or non-privacy-breaching attempts) and refused. You'll notice it is other users who opened and reopened the SPI case, my sole involvement in these SPI pages has been to provide evidence of what I know of the case to the discussion, and those facts have also been passed in full to Checkusers (I don't see anyone saying it's incorrect). While he had full sympathy at the start, his response was to threaten (twice) to become a "wikiterrorist" or to sock, and to lie about his behavior to Checkusers examining his editing history, and to breach a fairly universal policy on disclosure which the Checkuser team as a whole agreed should apply. Bottom line is that "I don't wanna" is not a good reason to play games and his fears of past account linking can be taken account of, but he refused from the start to work with those willing to try and help him, preferring threats instead. He probably needs to comply. FT2 (Talk 10:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * FT2, you may be right that his behavior has not always been exemplary, but all the bad behavior I have seen was a human response to very shabby treatment. He came back in good faith months after his previous account was linked to his real identity, and was outed again. Then you told him he couldn't edit in the same area of Wikipedia. In my opinion he was perfectly entitled to edit in the same area provided his editing behavior was acceptable (as for everyone else). That is the heart of this matter. Zerotalk 14:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Personal attack, now misrepresentation. Chill, Zero, this is incorrect as well. He has never been told he may not edit in any area, as you claim. He's actually been told he is welcome to do so - but contributing on I-P is conditional on not misleading other editors as to his past editing history, which is a Checkuser consensus from last year. WP:SOCK and WP:CLEANSTART are both very clear indeed - we don't undertake to protect anyone against being identified or discussed as a past user if they return, and if that's a problem it's down to the user to modify their editing or change editing areas to avoid recognition. They may also have to make a choice between non-disclosure and topic editing where they have significant past history or warnings. Noisetier was given that decision by Checkusers, but instead his conduct deteriorated and more concerns arose. The problem is that "acceptable" includes complying with this norm. FT2 (Talk 16:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * FT2, in reply to your suggestion, since I recently learned that, according to an administrator (FT2=you) that I trust, the editor has threatened off-wiki to become a wikiterrorist, I don't think I would open a case in WP:ANI, for fear of my personal safety. Not sure what this means exactly but I prefer to be on the safe side - I rather not have any personal business with terrorists of any kind, thank you. Administrators on this site should think carefully whether people making such threats should be allowed to continue editing. Anyone else willing to handle this case is welcome but I'm finished. Marokwitz (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Notice to other editors, the IP 81.247.176.156 just erased my previous comment from this page. Yet more evidence of disruptive behavior by this user. Marokwitz (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Further notice, the same IP just edited the Noiesetier talk page, in a way that proves the relationship beyond doubt. Marokwitz (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * On Wikimedia projects, privacy policy considerations are of tremendous importance. Unless someone is violating policy with their actions (e.g. massive bot vandalism or spam) and revealing information about them is necessary to stop the disruption, it is a violation of the privacy policy to reveal their IP, whereabouts, or other information sufficient to identify them, unless they have already revealed this information themselves on the project.
 * (...). Even if the user is committing abuse, it's best not to reveal personal information if possible.
 * Generally, do not reveal IPs. Only give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If detailed information is provided, make sure the person you are giving it to is a trusted person and will not reveal it himself. - If the user has said they're from somewhere and the IP confirms it, it's not releasing private information to confirm it if needed. - If you're in any doubt, give no detail.
 * 91.180.207.119 (talk) 11:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Smokescreen again - in bold this time. Long quote from policy is pointless. None of this applies since we aren't discussing revealing your IPs, your whereabouts or any other personally identifying information here. In fact the only person "revealing IPs" is you. Since you have used them publicly others can and will discuss them just like in any other SPI case (normal and policy-based). A disclosure of key features of your past editing history sufficient for fellow editors and a requirement to edit through just one account, do not need to involve any privacy policy issues and would resolve the issue. FT2 (Talk 11:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVIL + WP:AGF ; vendetta -> WP:POINT. 91.180.102.235 (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * These CU would be in violation with the privacy policy even more that none of the accounts that are discussed here above is blocked. There is no rule forbidding editing through IP and the requester didn't provide any abuse of the IP against which he requets as CU. The conclusion of a CU requests is obvious...
 * 91.180.207.119 (talk) 08:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as the "outright lie" claim made by the obvious sockpuppet who initiated this request, it should be noted that this block was applied at the user's own request and that it was lifted with the blocking admin writing previous log entry should not be seen as evidence of misconduct. Ironic given the editor, with that term being used extremely loosely, making the claim that others are lying here is actively evading a topic ban and multiple indefinite blocks (also known as lying).  nableezy  - 21:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

This thread was moved here since it was placed inside the section reserved for clerks and patrolling admins.
 * Moved comment


 * This comment is unacceptable and should be sanctionned. 81.247.147.220 (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This must be a Wikipedia first. A usecr evading a block by using a new IP sockpuppet - within a sockpuppet investigation page! Amazing. Any remaining doubt that the user should be indefinitely blocked ?! Marokwitz (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It isnt a "sockpuppet".  nableezy  - 21:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh really? Evading blocks by switching IP address and continuing to edit as if nothing has happened is not sockpuppetry? Just to refresh your memory, quote from WP:SOCK, "Editing under multiple IP addresses may be treated the same as editing under multiple accounts where it is done deceptively or otherwise violates the above principles. "21:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Treating two things the same doesn't make them the same. A sockpuppet is an alternate Wikipedia account used for illegitimate purposes. An IP isn't a Wikipedia account. An IP can't be a sockpuppet, although they "may be treated the same". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine, so since everyone agrees that we treat them the same, policy is that the user should be blocked, doesn't it? It doesn't matter whether they used multiple accounts, IP addresses, or a combination of both. Marokwitz (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The reaction to such a malicious, and obviously untrue as you are still here, claim is unfortunate. The primary issue here is the way that editors are allowed to manufacture a cause for banning. A user is harassed into retiring an account by a multiple times banned editor (NoCal, the author of this and each of the past SPIs). The user wishes to continue editing and does so as an IP, so NoCal now claims that the IPs are "sockpuppets". Never mind that the only block the user had, on any account, was placed, and rescinded, at their own request. So this gets turned into just proving that the IP and the accounts are connected as if that is what counts. No, what counts is if the person is restricted from editing Wikipedia or the topic area. He is not. So there is no case here as there is no actual violation of any restriction placed on the user. A restriction could be asked for, and possibly granted, that requires the user to edit only from a logged in account. Until that happens though there is no reason why the user cannot edit as an IP and all this crap about sockpuppetry remains an unfounded attempt by a banned user to harass a user in good standing into leaving. Aided by your good self of course, for reasons that are just as obvious as NoCal's.  nableezy  - 21:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't see any evidence that the user was harassed, and I don't think that emailing an administrator and declaring intent to become a wikiterrorist is a proper rational response to being harassed. And the only reason I am still participating in this debate is that the editor in question started deleting my own comments, something which I cannot accept. I did nothing other than repeat information posted by an administrator and express my personal feelings, and if the user chose to respond by breaking Wikipedia policies and get blocked, and then evaded the block by choosing another IP, then it just makes the disregard of Wikipedia policies more obvious, and the closing administrators job easier. Marokwitz (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course it is a sock, and it was already blocked as a block evading ip sock — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foo Bar Buzz Netz (talk • contribs)
 * And when will you be blocked as the block evading user that you are?  nableezy  - 21:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong, can you please explain to me what exactly a block would be for? Besides the block for edit-warring on this page by the IP and any associated block, what cause is there for blocking any account or IP? The user is not subject to any edit restriction of any kind. Is there a reason they are obligated to edit from a logged in account?  nableezy  - 04:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The block would be for soocking: evading a block using multiple IPs to edit, from October 7 to October 10. This user is also under an editing restriction: several admins and checkusers have told him he cannot edit IP topics unless he discloses his previous eding history in the topic area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foo Bar Buzz Netz (talk • contribs) 15:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? The user socked around a block that was placed at his own request and lifted at his own request with the blocking admin saying that the block should not be seen as evidence of misconduct? I see no evidence of any editing restriction in the ARBPIA log, can you please tell me where such a sanction was logged? Nobody is under an obligation to edit logged in, and this game of claiming "sock sock" (by an obvious sock) without being able to show any evidence of evasion of any restriction is most tiresome. This is simply you continuing with a years long campaign to manufacture a cause for the user to be banned. Never mind that there is no actual misconduct or that you are a banned editor who should have been blocked when you first started hounding a user in good standing.  nableezy  - 17:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is dreadful. If you check my page's archives, Noisetier has never hidden the fact that he was Alithien, then Ceedjee, the Noisetier. I mean, I'm tracked by the usual suspects, and if Noisetier was obsessed with getting around the rules, why one earth should he publicly converse with me on my page when he knows that is watched? There is simply no deception here, but, if memory serves me correctly, a personal uneasiness with the way he was harassed repeatedly, something which drove him away. I've never corresponded with this person over all this time, other than sending him the briefest of notes of sympathy once, about a month ago. Blocks are to stop disruptive behaviour. Self-blocks by a person who feels threatened are another matter. All these rules have but one function, to secure for the encyclopedia an enabling atmosphere for committed article builders to work with amenity. If any record shows that Noisetier and his previous handles were deeply problematic in this regard, by all means, there would be a case. I don't track people, but I'd give my left knacker as a guarantee for his bona fides, and high utility in this area. Nishidani (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note for patrolling admin - the block from 8 June onward was at the user's own self-request, in case this wasn't noticed. So editing despite this block would probably not be an issue. That said, editing WP:ARBPIA while misleading others to think that one has left (and the leaving is shown as enforced by block), when the truth is that one quickly returned as an IP to edit the same WP:ARBPIA topics is deceptive though. That needs fixing. FT2 (Talk 16:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Umm, it is fixed, the user is not blocked. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * blocked for 3 days for edit warring on this case, feel free to extend on socking. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  20:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well done, all - in just 26 hours, this case has amassed 35k in edits. It seems as though it's gone way off topic, so can someone summarize? Are there accounts that need to be added to the list? For reference, the range necessary to block the 81 IPs would be 81.247.0.0/16, which would have some collateral damage. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I.. think I'm going to close this for now. This whole case feels wrong to me somehow, and those IPs are kinda quiet. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)