Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Robvanden/Archive

04 April 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

They even edit each-others talk comments. Evidence: Special:Contributions/Shpoolky,, Special:Contributions/27.32.51.171, , , , , ,. Robvanden was initially editing as IP 27.32.51.171, as can be ssen on my talk page: User talk:Uirauna, but he now edits as BOTH the IP and the user, and they both claim to be differente people (as in the diff where the IP claims to agree with the view by Robvanden). I also suspect Scythian77 (who used to make similar offences as the IP, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive651) to be the same user:,. Uirauna (talk) 13:08, 4 April 2011 (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

 * Per these two edits, I've blocked 27.32.51.171 for a week. But I'm not wholly convinced about the accounts, so I'm endorsing. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't follow how those two edits you pointed out could result in a block of 27.32.51.171. They made the same change, but as part of an edit war with a half dozen named accounts that's zero proof of abusive use of multiple accounts. Even if both edits were made by the same person it's still not abusive socking. People may log out. They may forget to log in. It only starts to be problematic if they do so to "mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus". Those two diffs alone do not show that. And in this particular case, based purely on the edit history of Scythian77, I'm quite certain that he has nothing to do with the other parties in this edit war. Amalthea  10:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Condensed facts: I note again that editing as an IP is in itself not a problem. Only doing so to "mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus" is, as has happened here in points 2 and 3. Amalthea 10:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Rob aka Robvanden  that he edited with.
 * 2)  is  than the holder of account Robvanden ("I agree with Rob vanden's points.")
 * 3)  is later  a comment of Robvanden, implying they are the same person.
 * 4)  is  the same person as, per technical evidence. Particularly deceptive combined with the first edit of that account,  "Sure you new to editing?"
 * His IP hasn't edited in a while. The only thing left to consider is unblocking of the IP. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  20:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)