Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pedrote112/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( original case name)


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

The IP has been POV pushing and edit-warring on the Rent regulation‎‎ and Rent control in the United States articles and was just blocked for two weeks on 2021-03-27T14:38:12 as a result of this continued behavior (I believe this is the third block for this same behavior on the same articles, attempting to remove the statement: "There is a consensus among economists that rent control reduces the quality and quantity of housing."

Then this user account Pedrote112 (created in **2013** but with NO edits until 2021-03-27T23:03:24) did its first and only edits to the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard discussion which the IP had started and been arguing, (→‎Rent control: "on consensus among economists": ) which the user claims they "have recently been following", and that they support the views of the blocked IP. []

--- Avatar317 (talk) 04:32, 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

 * Both already blocked by Ymblanter. I've moved the case to the account (in the future, please file under the oldest named account, not under IPs), closing. Blablubbs&#124;talk 15:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The user has self-described as a particular IP. The IP then proceeded to say that it was indeed the IP of a blocked account, and was editing anyway even though the account had been blocked. The IP has continued to edit the NPOV noticeboard, which evades the current block on the account. I don't think we need a CheckUser here, since there is no real technical evidence needed that isn't already public, though I'd like an admin to review it. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My apologies for the parameter. I'll avoid doing that in the future. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users
Yes. I'd love someone to seriously review my case (not an administrator who, without reading the case, hits the lock button by default). My user account is Pedrote112. I was taken for an IP from another country. My IP is 83.33.129.185. I have complained but my account is still blocked without a technical argument (only personal -or ideological- beliefs) (see ). My initial purpose was to participate in a discussion on the improvement of some articles that have a serious neutrality problem. Users who are trying to make neutrality (not ideology) prevail are being persecuted by the users who are custodians of the articles. You can follow the discussion here (as i did in the past) and decide for yourself what is going on ].83.33.129.185 (talk) 10:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Removed the clerk parameter in the case status;, that one is usually reserved to CUs asking for merges etc. – you can just leave it open and we'll look sooner or later. Blablubbs&#124;talk 22:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Despite being in a different country, this IP is clearly the same person as, Pedrote112 was originally blocked for evading a block on the 193 IP. See , and note the edit summaries. The person may have travelled, or may be using an institutional/academic VPN network (the 193 IP belongs to renater and is sublet to Cité internationale universitaire de Paris. In any case, it's (self-admitted) block evasion whatever the exact circumstances, so – the IP looks relatively static, please block it for a month.  Blablubbs&#124;talk 13:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Both 83.33.129.185 and 193.52.24.13 (see archive) appear to be proxies. Blocked both for 6 months. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I ran relatively thorough proxy checks on both, and I don't see any indication that we're dealing with anonymising proxies here (one institutional/university network, one residential ISP, Spur isn't flagging, no other technical indicators), and the timeline is consistent with somebody travelling from one country to another (e.g. for an academic conference), or using a university VPN or similar to access the internet (e.g. to get access to restricted journals). Is there something I'm missing? Blablubbs&#124;talk 15:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , IPQualityScore was calling both proxies, but now that I go back and re-check, it's only saying that for the 193 address.  Maybe I just mis-read it the first time.  I've backed out my blocks and I'll leave this for somebody else to take a look at. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , alright, thanks – I'll set this back to admin. For what it's worth, IPQS is one of the less reliable proxy checking services in my experience – there is a tendency to overflag stuff, but I can't tell what leads to that because the results aren't very verbose (spur context is usually spot on and their API is even better, though callback proxy results usually need some interpretation). Blablubbs&#124;talk 15:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * for 1 month per Blablubbs original recommendation, closing. Mz7 (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
More edit warring about the lead of Rent control in the United States. Here an IP in the same /64 block acknowledges the previous block diff. MrOllie (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2022 (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

 * Blocked the /64 for three months as they've been on that range that long, and all edits from it have been related to this edit war. Closing. firefly  ( t · c ) 11:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)