Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PNW Raven/Archive

15 April 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Editor has been warned to stop reverting and discuss at The Godfather by three editors; is now attempting to WP:WIN and evade WP:3RR by logging out and editing as an IP. IP edit was made 8 minutes after a disruptive editing warning was left on PNW Raven's talk page. IP geolocates to Seattle, Washington - PNW Raven is from the Seattle area (as indicated by their username and in their userspace). Suspected sockmaster is angry their edits are being removed. One edit summary found here states "Do not change this again or I'll report it." They next left the following message here on a reverting editor's talk page: "Do not revert my edits again or else I'll report you to Wiki Editors.  The previous version was poorly written and inaccurate." -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Update: Editor responded to the SPI notice at the IP's talk page admitting they used the IP address here ; then added some more here ; and then as an afterthought added "(I am working from a work computer that has a different IP address.) I will follow up later tonight from my home computer...". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)*Comment   I asked for a CU unaware that if there is a named account along with an IP account in the report, a CU can't be run.  I thought that policy was only if there are IPs used for socking.  For future reference, when someone admits to socking after the report is filed, should I ask the report be dismissed, the CU be dismissed, or... how does the one filing the report proceed?  Ask the report be disregarded (I'm unsure because your comments below say 'declined' - which tells me letting the report stand was some kind of inappropriate action on my part?)  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  18:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I should be blocked? I am filing a complaint about Winkelvi who clearly overstepped his bounds as editor. I made good faith edits to The Godfather because it is not well written. There is a notice on the Talk Page asking for improvements. Winkelvi instantly reverted my edits on no basis whatsoever then tries to initiate an edit war and claims I was doing "sockpuppetry" which I never even heard of. Suddenly there are these three other editors in on it????? I was working from a remote location and editing sporadically while working on other project and didn't even see the "warnings." At one time I did not realize I wasn't logged in, which is something I always do. This editor is preventing any changes being made claiming the "consensus" is it is fine the way it is, even though I have pointed out it is not well written, there are inaccuracies, it has overly wordy phrases, etc. I am a long-time editor and have always done so responsibly. An editor cannot arbitrarily undo another editor's work because they are protective of it.PNW Raven (talk) 23:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * All that does not make you exempt form the wp:three revert rule.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * And Winkelvi is not exempt from making unauthorized edit reverts. Any article can be edited by any editor to improve it and they required to ask for permission on minor editing. I will be more careful of the three revert rule for reverting my own edits in the future but I suggest that Winkelvi be warned about his editing role.PNW Raven (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - First of all, we don't use CheckUser to connect IPs with named accounts. Second, this user admits using the IP, so there is no need to check anything. should be blocked for breaking the WP:three-revert rule (including the edit made using the IP: ). The IP should be blocked for the same reason.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  18:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Just relax, you did nothing wrong. I declined CU on procedural grounds, as we may not use it to reveal account's IP (see the intro at WP:SPI). "Declined" does not mean that you did anything inappropriate, and it does not mean that the case should be closed (as some people think). It just means that we may not run the CU, but the case should be investigated behaviorally. You should not ask the case to be dismissed as long as you have reason to believe that sockpuppetry is going on (and in this case, there is certainly reason to believe that).  Vanjagenije   (talk)  20:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Both given three-day 3RR blocks. The claim of accidentally logging out is implausible, given the timing of the edits, but the edit-warring stopped once the SPI was filed, so I'm hopeful that PNW Raven will take this as a nudge to edit more collaboratively. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)