Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Okip/Archive

Evidence submitted by Jclemens
IP address has suddenly appeared, posting to an AfD and to ARS page (see contributions) as an Okip partisan--or perhaps as an agent provocateur. If it's Okip himself, I'd like his block made permanent. If not, I want clear evidence that there is no evidence connecting this IP to Okip. Likewise, if this IP belongs to one of the anti-Okip partisans, I'd liked them blocked, too. Jclemens (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is now approaching 24 hours without a CU... Jclemens (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Requested by Jclemens (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * a check on the IP. It's either block evasion, or more likely, trolling by a third party. I have blocked the IP 24 hours in the meantime. NW ( Talk ) 22:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This IP address is part of 32.0.0.0/8. From my past experience dealing with this range, users have almost complete access to the entire block. I'm not entirely sure what running a checkuser query would accomplish. Finding sleepers is, in my opinion, extremely unlikely, and it would be essentially impossible to stop him without blocking the entire range. J.delanoy gabs adds  20:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the idea is, if Okip is not editing from that range, then it may be evidence that the IP is not Okip. Of course a negative CU result cannot prove the absence of a connection, but it is probative evidence. Tim Song (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Changing to and closing. It is highly unlikely that a checkuser will tell us anything useful, and this case is really serving no further purpose. Checkusers are busy enough as it is. NW ( Talk ) 02:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

17 January 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

I'm fairly sure that this is self-admitted, see (removed) and  (now here). I know some of these are blocked and/or old, but enough is enough. ansh666 18:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, CU is for only, the others are basically disclosed. ansh666 18:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you look at the first link (the removed SPI report), that's the evidence. Plus, if you read some of Okip/Ikip's ranting and compare it to 750's, it's pretty identical, so WP:DUCK. ansh666 19:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Aaaaand now everyone's blocked... ansh666 04:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

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


 * How about some actual evidence of SOCK violations? CheckUser is not for fishing, nad publicly-declared alternate accounts are rarely a violation. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Man, I entirely forgot about Okip/Ikip. But I think ansh666 is on to something. 750edits' current crusade is pretty much point for point what Okip was arguing over here back in 2012.  Precisely the same talking points. Resolute 20:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also of note, indeffed 750edits per this ANI report.  Resolute 20:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And I have to admit the same thought crossed my mind, just based on the general style, the fact that they are obviously not new here, and the level of comfort with using multiple identities. In addition to the socks, Ikip had also edited as Okip, travb, inclusionsit, etc. Not sure that's enough to come to any solid conclusions, but it does suggest the same user. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I think everything has been resolved in this case. There were only two recent accounts created, but the behavioral evidence was pretty clear and they've been blocked. Unless there's a reason to suspect additional accounts, I don't think a check is needed. Mike V • Talk 19:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:58, 28 March 2021 (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
Filing for posterity, as Okip hasn't been spotted in some years, but they're back at it. Current focus is Nightingale College. Based on CU and off-wiki evidence, CU's email me for deets if you need. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)