Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ring Cinema/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Copies of edits, tone, and attitude from blocked user CCS81 (talk) 05:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC) Persistent obsession with 'plot' section; attacking other editors CCS81 (talk) 14:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Six separate IPs seem to be sockpuppets for banned User:Ring Cinema. Edits between 8:15 1 August and 12:23 2 August of No Country For Old Men (film) include six different anon IPs all making same or very similar changes and three registered users reverting these changes.  The behavior of the IPs is *very* similar to that of banned user Ring Cinema, e.g., over this stretch.  Examples of the user's behavior on talk page regarding this issue which bears much similarity to behavior and wording of IPs are here and here.


 * Note also that the user seems to be on guard against accusations of sock puppetry. Here the user identifies as an anon IP, not, e.g., Mary from Santa Barbara. Here the user seems to understand that 'Ring Cinema' is a 'who' and not a 'what'.  (I know that if I was accused of being a sock puppet for 'Ring Cinema,' my first response would be, "I have no idea what that is.")


 * Regarding diffs, compare: this edit from 2015 by Ring Cinema and this edit from 2017 from anon IP. Note similarities, obsession with excessive wording and subjects of air duct, scene between Moss and brother, etc.  CCS81 (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'd like to point out that the IP's edit summary here suggests they have some familiarity with "nattering all day about WP:PLOT". It's unusual for IPs to know about WP:PLOT at all.
 * I also find it suspicious that the article lay mostly dormant for a long period after Ring Cinema was banned, and the minute I return to it to make some plot changes, we're suddenly edit warring with this anonymous user about exactly the same thing. Popcornduff (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

2602:30A:2E7F:2170:9509:E23F:8C98:E497 (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: That the user, who above admits to being the same user spread over six IPs, re-inserted or reverted the same content six times within about four hours (again, here: Edits between 8:15 1 August and 12:23 2 August), despite three editors consistently opposing the changes, is the greatest evidence for this being either Ring Cinema, or at best another editor who shares his(?) temperament and editing policies. CCS81 (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Not sure if this is the right spot, but I'm editing via AT&T 4G and I don't know who "Ring Cinema" is, and if there's any evidence I can give, I'd be more than happy to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.212.212 (talk) 05:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Howdy. This is the person who was editing No Country for Old Men - the previous IPs were from 4G and a Starbucks, and the current IP is from my home. I'm not interested in extending this over a film's plot and I'm definitely not interested in freaking out on Wikipedia admins like this Ring Cinema guy. I'll admit to being miffed my edits were reverted for "unnecessary detail", and I'll fess up to edit warring and snapping at The Old Jacobite from previous conflicts over the Scarface 1983 page. I know WP:FILMPLOT through various notes left on other film plot pages.

I'm personally not seeing a similarity between my edits and his (obviously, being accused, this sounds empty), but Ring Cinema kept adding detail and talking about the method of vent removal, whereas I don't think the vent is important to the plot summary. If the other editors disagree, that's fine, but I'd prefer to be told than simply have my edits reverted because previous versions were "better", even if I removed odd wording or unnecessary detail.

Edit: I've looked at his user contributions - I've never seen Sleuth, Deathtrap or either Godfather.

I don't know how else to argue my case, since I don't have an account. 2602:30A:2E7F:2170:9509:E23F:8C98:E497 (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Same IP, just made an account. If needed, I can provide the histories from the aforementioned IPs. Orthacanthus (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * FWIW has made one edit (in May) to La Strada, another one of Ring Cinema's articles they liked to own. The edit summary is very telling, if you compare that to the summaries used by RC in the article's edit history.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 10:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
 * 1) At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
 * 2) At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
 * 3) In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  11:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * All of these IP's are now stale. Closing with no actions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Account is created by former anon IPs: see SPI CCS81 (talk) 04:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * User of account is same as former anon IPs: see here and.

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

 * While I'm not going to completely rule out sockpuppetry, I certainly understand the filing editors' suspicions, there's nothing sufficiently definitive to conclude that this definitely is sockpuppetry. As such, I'm closing this case with no action. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)