Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Onetwothreeip/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

1) It is clear from the editing history of the IP address above that he/she had unilaterally made massive deletion to a large number of Wikipedia pages, most recently to two Nobel Prize-related pages: List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation and List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation II. Most importantly, User "Onetwothreeip" would immediately follow to delete more, and they did not use Talk Page before their unilateral behavior. After I opposed and warned them, User "Onetwothreeip" continued to make reverts and defend the IP address. It is worth mentioning that User "Onetwothreeip" had a long history of trying to delete much content or split the Nobel pages, but was opposed by some other editors and I, as can be seen from Talk:List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation.

2) The IP address from above is from New Zealand, and just started editing extensively these days. And User "Onetwothreeip" has been involved heavily in the stuff of the neighboring country Australia (it is also possible with travelling or VPN), just to name a few:, , , , ,. Note that the IP address also edited on stuff of Australia.

3) The IP address has made massive deletion on many Wikipedia pages (especially some of the pages that I had help create), and had made direct personal attacks towards me on edit comments - please refer to his/her editing history. User "Onetwothreeip" has done the exactly same thing - please refer to his/her editing history, and a recent edit war on Talk:List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation.

4) I have more evidence that User "Onetwothreeip" is possibly related to other accounts (such as and ), who have also appeared on the Talk Pages of the aforementioned Nobel Prize articles. But for now, I will just wait for the investigation of this round. Minimumbias (talk) 05:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

5) @User:Oshwah, I'm not sure if it is proper to ask you directly, but since you had dealt with the IP address above on the disruptive editing case that I reported, I'm wondering if you can continue to have a look at this sock puppet case? Thanks.

@User:My very best wishes, User:BullRangifer, User:X1\, sorry for the abrupt notice, but I see you all have been in some grueling fight with this account "Onetwothreeip", who has been unilaterally trying to split many Wikipedia articles in an obsessive way. If you have any more evidence of sock puppetry in your mind related to this account, please share the information below. Thanks. Minimumbias (talk) 07:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Completely ridiculous. I give full permission for any CheckUser to compare IP addresses. The fact that Australia and New Zealand are neighbouring countries has got to be one of the weakest rationales ever. I'm actually sorry for BullRangifer, X1\ and My Very Best Wishes for being brought up in this attempt at piling on. Is there a reason why I wasn't informed of this SPI?

It's nice that Minimumbias has actually linked to a previous example where they were claiming I was controlling some other account, except that time it was just that I agreed with another editor on the talk page, who they disagreed with. This time another editor has made edits that Minimumbias disagrees with and that I agree with. Onetwothreeip (talk) 12:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I don't think any of this evidence is particularly convincing.
 * You say that the IP edited List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation, and then the user account edited it. However I don't see any motive to use sockpuppetry here: the IP edits weren't challenged until after onetwothreeip made their edit, so why would they not just use their account (or just use their IP) in this case? What's more,, I don't understand the justification behind this revert at all. WP:SPI isn't the place to debate content disputes, so I don't really want to get too far into this, but I don't think that revert is justified and I don't see any reason why an editor would use a sockpuppet over those edits. The other activity of the IP and the user account shows wildly different subject matter interests.
 * This is strictly circumstantial (believe it or not, lots of people are from Australia/New Zealand).
 * This presumably refers to pages like List of Fields Medal winners by university affiliation and List of Turing Award laureates by university affiliation? Which Onetwothreeip has not recently edited.
 * After a cursory glance at, I'm pretty confident that they are not a sockpuppet of Onetwothreeip.
 * By the way, the ANI case is this one. There are no diffs there, but you say they "persisted in unilaterally deleting massive content". I'm not sure why you say that, since you never posted on their talk page before the ANI notification, and the only edit that they repeated after your revert was this one (reverted restored), and again, I don't really see why you reverted that with no edit summary.
 * So, from a behavioral perspective, I don't think there's anything to do here. From a technical perspective, checkusers usually won't link a user account to an IP for privacy policy reasons, even if the check is self requested, but I'll leave this open for a bit for a possible second opinion. ST47 (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * This is a meritless and somewhat abusive filing. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)