Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rjensen/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Suspicioulsy after a discussion on the talk page of the article Progressive Alliance that didn't go his way anonymous IPs made the change that he wanted (removing a piece of information inside the article) as can be see here: 1, 2, 3, 4 Dereck Camacho (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Hello User:generalizationsAreBad, I did not know this to be the case. May I ask why wikipedia cannot connect unregistered users (IPs) to registered ones?
 * Presumably the IPs used for login are stored for each username, are they not? So you could establish a connection if there was one.
 * I want to say I'm a bit surprised that User:Rjensen has been involved in this situation before. I have found him to be helpful on topics concerning the history of mathematics, so needless to say my discovery of the 2007 WP:SOCK was a bit surprising.

I also want to add that I find it a little unusual that the clerk has outright rejected the request, even though they do have enough information to establish a relationship (if one does exist).
 * The (two) IPs who reverted his insertion are a little weird and while I like Rjensen, the reporter seems to be on to something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.37.28.20 (talk) 22:28, July 3, 2017‎ (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  20:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * - We cannot use CU to connect named accounts with IPs. I also removed a user whose inclusion in this filing was unfounded and bordered on outright disruption. GABgab 22:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * @191*: Our CU policy stipulates that "CheckUsers are discouraged from making a public statement that connects one or more IP addresses to one or more named accounts..." This is required due to privacy concerns. A CU-decline does not preclude behavioral analysis, etc. GABgab 22:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Most of the edit warring came from Brazilian IPs which coincidentally the 191.37.28.0/24 range is a list of proxies and I've now hard blocked it. It's also Brazilian. The IPv6 /64 range has been hopping, edit warring and messages were left on various talk pages. Wikipedians shouldn't have to chase IPv6s down. Hardblocked as every single edit in the range is the same person. Multiple editors appear to have engaged in a content dispute and the Brazilian IP is quite unlikely to be Rjensen. Closing.