Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pelarmian/Archive

02 September 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Over September 1-2, a string of reversions at Active measures occurred by 84.190.154.8, then 178.84.139.121, then Pelarmian, which were accompanied by nearly identical language/excuses in their edit commentaries. This article has very light editing traffic, and so this apparent attempt to "bolster numbers" and evade 3RR is suspicious. Given the discontinuous histories of the widely divergent IPs, I suspect they are open proxies.Froglich (talk) 08:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by submitter: The IPs are bogus regardless and should be canned even if CheckUser reveals they're not linked to Pelarmian -- under the reasonable conclusion they're proxy socks of somebody as deduced from their contrib history. 84.190.154.8, for instance, has exactly two edits, separated by a seven-year absence. As far as nothing happening for eight days, that's because I'm waiting pending the results of this.--Froglich (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I am not sockpuppeting.

The edits by 178.84.139.121 and 84.190.154.8 were made before I made my edits under my username, which, prima facie, is the opposite sequence of edits one would expect from a sockpuppet. But more important is the fact that Geolocate places 178.84.139.121 in the Netherlands and 84.190.154.8 in Germany, while I am in the south of England. Also, I have never sockpuppeted and have never been blocked in eight years of editing. Pelarmian (talk) 10:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Looks like a legitimate content dispute to me, with no input from on the talk page discussion. Suspected socks do have some WP:DUCK-like attributes, but given 's good standing and clear attempt to discuss the matter, I have my doubts they're really willing to jeopardize their good name just to make a few reverts.

Sock or not, the last edit was eight days ago, and we're looking at total of four back-and-forth reverts. I don't see how a block would help anything at this point. I'll await someone who is more experienced at SPI to make the final decision, but I'd say it's safe to close the case with no administrative action necessary. &mdash;  MusikAnimal talk 03:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. The evidence is too thin to take any action against Pelarmian, and the IPs are stale. Froglich, a CU will rarely connect a named account with an IP for privacy reasons, and there's no indication the IPs are open proxies.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)