Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PeopleEater143/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

While I don't normally care that someone uses an account and an IP (I am guilty of it myself), they are using it to avoid 3rr detection. Kellymoat (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I added a 3rd ip. I didn't realize that it was a different IP that contacted me on my talk page than the other 2.Kellymoat (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added another that is acting in a similar manner to the named user. 331dot (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

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

First of all, I'm not a sock. Second, you yourself have violated the 3RR rule, so the fact that you reported me is laughable. You cannot revert someone's edits simply because you believe they're a sock. If you had proof that I was a sock, then you would have every right to revert my edits. But you don't. PeopleEater143 (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, you didn't leave me a message on my talk page letting me know you created this report, which Wikipedia tells you to do. Just saying. PeopleEater143 (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And yet you found it anyhow. Kellymoat (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, because I'm watching your contribs page, waiting to see when you revert my edit next. PeopleEater143 (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Articles to use for behavioural evidence:
 * All of them have been edited by one of the IPs and PeopleEater143. —C.Fred (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * All of them have been edited by one of the IPs and PeopleEater143. —C.Fred (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * All of them have been edited by one of the IPs and PeopleEater143. —C.Fred (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * All of them have been edited by one of the IPs and PeopleEater143. —C.Fred (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Further evidence would be my talk page, where the account user just said "When you reverted my edit on "Focus", guess what? I got over it,", except the account did not edit Focus (song). The IP User did. Kellymoat (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Well I'm going to get banned now, so I might as well let you know how I feel about you without having to hold back certain profanities. Yes, bravo, I am the IP user. Happy now? Ready to pull the stick out of your ass? Jesus Christ, your parents must really hate you. You absolutely refuse to ever back down. So, when I gave you the example of Focus, instead of thinking to yourself, "Gee, maybe I am a stubborn asshole who makes huge deals out of nothing", you thought, "He must be the IP user! Yay! I win!!!" You really are a toxic individual. I hope this makes you feel better. You know what makes me feel better? Knowing that I have a family that loves me and great friends. But if finding multiple IP accounts makes you feel fulfilled, then I am truly sorry for you. Get a life, why don't you. PeopleEater143 (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

For God's sake, the fact that you admitted to reverting over 500 edits just shows how truly obsessed you are with changing pages to fit what you want them to be. For the love of God, give it a fucking rest. Like, what do you gain from getting me banned? Getting to be right? You know what, I'd rather be wrong and know I'm not a control freak than be right and be a complete asshole. Have a nice li- oh wait, you don't have one. PeopleEater143 (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You can only blame yourself. I said in one of the edit summaries that if you continued that I would open up a sock puppet investigation. You continued. And now, here we are. Kellymoat (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought it was. PeopleEater143 (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, no. You're still wrong here in terms of what you're adding to the pages. The only reason that, according to Wikipedia, I'm wrong, is because I'm using an account and an IP address (which I didn't even know was wrong, but whatever). And actually I was the one that said I would report you first, so let's get our facts straight here. PeopleEater143 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You may not have known about the sockpuppet rule, but you certainly knew enough to change back and forth on my talk page from an account user to an ip user. You also knew enough, while speaking as an account, to refer to "that anonymous users' edits" as if you were someone else, which demonstrates your ability to try to evade consequence. Kellymoat (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

NOTE from third party: An admin may wish to investigate the behaviour of and connection between User:Kellymoat and User:331dot as there seems to be a tag-teaming thing going on between them. I am actually nothing at all to do with the issue or articles between Kellymoat and PeopleEater143, I am simply another user whom Kellymoat has decided to edit war with on another article because s/he is simply disruptive. 331dot then joined in and after that proceeded to blanket revert another article I had edited (thus vandalising it). I am not even in the same country as the IP users they have listed above. 86.178.110.23 (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I invite any administrator to check for any connection or evidence I am a sock, you will find none because I am not. I have never talked to Kellymoat and certainly am not colluding against a random IP user that I don't know.  There are various issues with the IP user who posted above, but I will not discuss them in this forum. 331dot (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oy Vey! Give me a break.
 * Kellymoat (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hahahahahah I knew it. Kellymoat is a control freak who gets off by reverting people's edits over and over until she gets her way. What a toxic individual. I'm done here, and I suggest everyone else do the same. She is the most unreasonable individual ever, and hopefully, if Wikipedia has any brains at all, she'll get karma in the worst way possible some day. Peace out. PeopleEater143 (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Possible meatpuppetry between and master sock? What a coincidence. --JustBerry (talk) 23:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

This is quite obviously the same set of IPs as WP:Sockpuppet investigations/73.81.150.34. Look at the IPs listed there. They speak exactly the same as these ones, they were just targeting a different set of articles. This is a blatant example of abuse across multiple IPs (and even several accounts), except now both cases have been declined for CU because IPs can't be publicly disclosed as being connected to certain user accounts. They are clearly in violation of Wikipedia rules and it's just going to continue because of the inaction.  Ss 112  18:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
We don't publicly disclose the IP(s) of named accounts. CU declined. Notification of the opening of an SPI case is not required.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The 73* IPs look like PeopleEater. 86* does not. Geolocation issues aside, behavior doesn't match in my opinion. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No comment on the case for over a month, none of the provided IPs active in the past 30 days, closing case. For future IP-hopping disruption, consider page protection or resubmit an SPI case for a rangeblock to be evaluated. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  18:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

All these IP addresses are suspected to be the same user but hopping from one to another.

Engaging in edit warring:
 * 1
 * 2
 * 3

Blanked an album page because it had been vandalized, then made it a redirect page instead of reverting. 1

Requesting checkuser, I forgot to put yes in the field

Jennica ✿ / talk 10:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

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

These 73.81 IPs are habitual offenders. The person operating them speaks as if they're familiar with Wikipedia policies (they cited WP:SYNTH on one of the IPs above) and I'm almost certain that a proper CheckUser will turn up a series of blocked accounts or at least one or two that were blocked due to disruptive editing, just as they did at Sheeran's articles today and yesterday. At least, it's very likely they are a user with a bit of history here, because it's quite rare IPs speak like this and challenge users as frequently. (I have a feeling that is not related. It geolocates to India, while the rest are located in Pennsylvania. They seem to have wrongly equated "Shape of You" and "Castle on the Hill" as a double A-side.)  Ss  112  10:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I also believe is one of the related ones. They edited List of 2017 albums the other day and spoke to me on their talk page as if they were familiar with Wikipedia policies as well.  Ss  112  10:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like they're registered with an account now: I also think this editor may have prior blocked accounts, as they also cited Rihanna releasing two singles on the same date (which are apparently listed alphabetically) as some sort of "precedent". It's usually pop music editors who have some sort of knowledge of this type of thing.  Ss  112  14:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Clearly related to the IPs and account Kellymoat had trouble with at Sockpuppet investigations/PeopleEater143 and yet it appears nothing can be or will be done, so blatant violation of Wikipedia rules will continue by IP-hopping edit warriors who abuse users.  Ss 112  18:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Add another to the list: Will nothing be done about this IP-hopping disruptive editor?  Ss  112  21:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yet another, now saying they want to "fight" editors who add "unsourced crap" to articles. Surely admins can't think this use of edit summaries is appropriate?  Ss  112  19:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Still edit warring, this time at List of 2017 albums using and  (also still writing inappropriate edit summaries). I really don't know how many other variations of this 73.81. IP they have edited under. This is very clearly a problematic editor and they know they use different IPs and don't care. Whether this is automatic or not, it is a problem considering their behaviour and there is proof they have engaged in sockpuppetry. Is this ever going to be investigated?  Ss  112  05:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
CU declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This case was originally opened under 73.81.150.34 but has been moved here. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No comment on the case for almost a month, none of the provided IPs active in the past several days, closing case. For future IP-hopping disruption, consider page protection or resubmit an SPI case for a rangeblock to be evaluated. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  18:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

User_talk:Kellymoat and User_talk:NeilN. User is also currently blocked under two ip ranges.

New user appears at the exact moment the other is here (on an previously blocked IP, but currently unblocked) making edits. Using an article talk page to make the same arguments the unblocked IP is making. Kellymoat (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added a 2nd name to the list.

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' What? I brought it up on the talk page to try and clear the issue up. If I'm using the same arguments as another user, that's because it's a valid argument. And you're wrong; if "Feeling Myself" is a single, then it needs to be on her discography page. If it's not, then remove it as one on the album page. TaraAshleyIpollito (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * You're digging a hole that you can't get out of.Kellymoat (talk) 01:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * And you're reverting edits for no reason. I've seen the way you treated that IP user (who I'm guessing is the same one that made that comment below). It's not right. You continually revert their edits, even though they're valid edits. I can't understand why someone hasn't blocked you. I'm sorry, I usually don't argue this much, but you reported me after my first edit, which is a little harsh. TaraAshleyIpollito (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Kelly, have you ever considered that in trying so hard to find, revert, and block sock puppets that you care less about content and more about getting specific people banned? As I've said countless times, the information I add is correct, you just don't care, and you want me banned. I really don't get you. I've tried so hard to understand you, but I feel like there's nothing to understand. And the fact that you blatantly lied to Neil, an administrator, is troubling. You say you "don't remember" why you reverted my edits. Then why did you revert them? You make no sense, and seem to exist on Wikipedia purely to ban people, not to make it better or more factual, and that's a shame. 156.12.251.41 (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Kelly, so you don't want Wikipedia to have correct information on it, is that correct? Even if you don't answer, your edit history is proof enough, so you might as well answer seriously. 156.12.251.41 (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I knew it, you're not going to respond. It's ok, your lack of response basically says to me, "You're right, I'm only here to ban people, not to make Wikipedia a better place, but I'm not going to tell anyone that, and even when confronted about it (Neil asking you about it) I will deny deny deny." 156.12.251.41 (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * You are spending a lot of time trying to deflect this onto me. And yet, the link to my talk page that I posted above has a link to two other established users discussing you and your edits, and they are questioning why you haven't been blocked. Are they also trouble makers? Kellymoat (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Adding my request for a CU to straighten this out. --Neil N  talk to me 01:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * - Please check the accounts against the master (and block the block-evading IP, if you don't mind). Thanks, GABgab 01:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Technical evidence confirms that the two accounts listed on this report are related to each other. It is also that they are related to the master. -- Versa  geek  20:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked socks. Neil N  talk to me 21:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Has twice admitted to socking across IPs/block evasion. Occupies same IP range as previously blocked IP socks of this user (73.81.156-157.x). Consistent pattern of behavior - rapid IP hopping within a narrow range to make edits to pop music articles, reuses specific complaints and turns of phrase. Repetition of the phrase "factual edit(s)", complaint that "Some people aren't here to keep factual content on Wikipedia, but more to block as many people as possible" which is nearly verbatim to an objection raised by the user in a previous SPI discussion ("... you care less about content and more about getting specific people banned?") - same as seen in previously established SPs of this user. All listed IPs have been blocked for 1 week for block evasion, so no action is required there. The reason for this report is the consideration of the option of a rangeblock, as suggested by User:Salvidrim! on 2/20/2017 for the SPI opened on 2/16/2017. Use has been advised to return to their original account and file an unblock request but the odds of this occurring seem minuscule based on track record. - Vianello (Talk) 20:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Both of the things you posted as proof of me "admitting to being a sock" were not proof at all. I have never admitted to being a sock because I am not one. And what I said is true; my edits are factual and correct, but because you believe I'm a sock, you are reverting them, and thus adding incorrect information to Wikipedia. Up until 2 hours ago you hadn't even put in a request to see if I was a sock, so you were indeed acting under the assumption that I was a sock, without ever having proof of it. And you blocked some of the IP ranges I was editing with, again with no proof, which I don't understand how that's allowed, but whatever. You have done things that are ridiculous, without reason, and counterproductive, all under an assumption about me that you don't know is true. I urge you to consider acting mature and look at my edits for what they are: factual and correct. Even if I was a sock, my edits are factual, so why should they be reverted? You are reverting simply because you can, and not because you have a reason to. It's shameful. 73.81.156.184 (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, why did you bother reporting my other IP ranges? You already blocked them without proof, because apparently here at Wikipedia everyone is guilty until proven innocent. 73.81.156.184 (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This would bring the total number of admitted block evasions to three now. If revealing that you were the same individual as two previously blocked IPs was unintentional, I suppose calling it an "admission" isn't quite accurate, to be fair, so much as an "inadvertent self-exposure". - Vianello (Talk) 23:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * All IPs blocked. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've range blocked  for three months on its own merits, but .  Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 23:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Targeting same topic (pop music) and general pages (ex: The Hurting. The Healing. The Loving. and Melodrama (Lorde album) previously targeted by user in question. Consistent behavior of submitting corrections to articles with consistent but frequently acidic edit summaries. Both IPs are outside of the 73.81.x.x range typically used by this user, but note that their usual range was recently placed under a rangeblock (see SPI archive). Second IP is still editing actively, first appears to be inactive. Beginning to consider advancing the suggestion of a community ban for this user to simplify future dealings with their incessant block evasion. - Vianello (Talk) 21:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC) - Vianello (Talk) 21:58, 13 June 2017 (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
There are a couple IP ranges besides 73.81 that PeopleEater143 uses, but I generally range block them as I see them become active again. That said, I don't think the Brazilian IP is PeopleEater143. The behavior doesn't seem obvious enough to override the radically different geolocation from previous IP socks. I blocked 208.28.133.202 for a month, though. That one is pretty obvious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)