Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Philbox17/Archive

Report date September 16 2009, 22:58 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by 76.64.152.111

Both accounts both use the number "17" and they are both editing the same articles. User:Philbox17 has a long history of problems on his talk page for the article Réseau de Résistance du Québécois, which both sockpuppets are editing. They are working together to delete cited information from the article and replacing it with their own. I believe the sockpuppet master is a member of the organization Réseau de Résistance du Québécois and lacks neutral point of view. Please block both of their accounts. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Nathan  T 22:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

F Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Converting this case from a malformed post on WP:SPI. Not actually personally requesting CU. Nathan  T 22:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * And it looks like Versageek performed a checkuser and issued the blocks. Nathan  T 23:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

Report date September 18 2009, 15:53 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Nathan


 * Same style of editing to R%C3%A9seau_de_R%C3%A9sistance_du_Qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois as the previously blocked sockpuppets Patriote17 and Philbox17.


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Nathan  T 15:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Self-endorsed for CU. Nathan  T 15:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * ✅ PatrioteQc = Québécois101 = Philbox17 -- Versa geek  16:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Blocked by nixeagle, tagged by me. Nathan  T 16:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Report date September 21 2009, 23:07 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Atama

Please see the previous sockpuppets of this sockmaster at Sockpuppet investigations/Philbox17/Archive. Basically this editor has been relentless in making sockpuppet after sockpuppet to push the same agenda on the Réseau de Résistance du Québécois article, apparently as a political activist and possibly as a member of the organization that the article is about. This looks to be just the latest of these puppets. The article has been fully-protected partially because of these attacks. --  At am a  頭 23:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by  At am a  頭 23:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Mostly requesting a CU because it was done in the past 2 cases regarding this particular editor. --  At am a  頭 23:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC) . See below. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 23:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions

Already indefinitely blocked. Best, Peter Symonds ( talk ) 23:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Report date September 27 2009, 04:40 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Newest sock of this user. Continues pattern of disruptive edits to Reseau de Resistance du Quebecois. Possible IP ban if its not going to cause too much collateral damage? Please see earlier socks for further evidence about this user. Frmatt (talk) 04:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Frmatt


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Versageek has commented before that an IP range ban wouldn't be feasible, which is a shame because generally a new sock is created within a couple of days of the last one being blocked, every single time. I wonder if a long-term semi-protection would help. --  At am a  頭 05:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users
 * I thought I had seen a comment earlier, but couldn't find it (I just came off a 12 hour shift!) Frmatt (talk) 05:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * This is ✅. I've blocked the sock account. He's on several different ranges, so it would require a number of different range blocks to have a reasonable chance of stopping him.. I'd like to try rehabilitation first.. I have made the offer on the talk page of the latest sock. -- Versa geek  11:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Report date September 29 2009, 03:06 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

User continues disruptive edits in the same manner and style of previous socks of this user. Has also made an entirely false accusation of vandalism against me. I will be filing a further report to see what more can be done about this user as this user now has five confirmed socks in addition to this one. Frmatt (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Frmatt


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

I corrected the spelling of the sock's name, QC -> Qc. Regarding the substance of the case, I don't think it is hard to see the pattern. EdJohnston (talk) 04:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * This issue has also been discussed at ANI. An editor has suggested that the openly-declared COI of Philbox17 and the consistent editing on behalf of the group may justify an indef block for all concerned and a block of the underlying IP. I'm not seeing much reason to disagree at this point. Philbox17 himself was indef blocked on 16 September due to the prior case. There is also a report at WP:COIN about the Réseau. For the previous socks of Philbox17, see . EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * ✅ and blocked -- Versa geek  20:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)