Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rockyobody/Archive

Report date March 4 2009, 22:50 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by JimRDJones (talk)

The user Rockyobody and IP 71.185.180.70 have edited many of the same articles, with the edits usually only minutes apart and using similar edit summaries. Rockyobody previously had repeatedly removed cited information from a number of different editors about United States Congressman Peter King’s long and well-documented association with Irish Republican terrorism. I engaged user in dialogue in an effort to work out this dispute and the user appeared to be receptive, but now the IP 71.185.180.70 is removing the same information as Rockyoubody was opposed to previously. I have tried to bring up this on his talk page but the comments are just blanked almost immediately.

As a new user I am not knowledgeable on Wikipedia policy but I consider the level at which this user controls this article to be unhealthy for Wikipedia, and now I think it is possible he is using an IP address to anonymously continue an edit war.



JimRDJones (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Shortly after this report was made the original IP (71.185.180.70) made one edit, but has since made none. The previous day the IP made around 15. However, a new IP (96.245.84.175), based in the same geographic location as the first, has started making similar edits including removing the same block of text.



JimRDJones (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The user that has been accused of being a sockpuppet of Rockyobody Eaglesfan619 edited this page to remove his name from the list of suspected sockpuppets and removed the tag on his user page. Isn't this interfering with the ability for this to be investigated?

Rockyobody has repeatedly removed the tags from the IPs that have been suggested are his sock puppets   and has had his user pages protected due to his retirement even though he continues to edit.

This seems to me to be a real effort to cover up these accusations and interfere with the process

JimRDJones (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I left a comment on the user who accused me discussion. I want no part in this because I have done nothing wrong.Eaglesfan619 (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The article in question (Peter T. King), is edited by three anononomys IPs. One is constantly removing and the other two are calling him terrorists. I agree that all sourced content should be kept, and if you are accusing me of removing negative info about King, you are false. I am simply trying to keep the article NPOV. - Rockyobody (talk) 02:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * JimRDJones, I really cant find a logical explanation to all this, but I absolutely stand by my claim I never have/ never will be a sockpuppeter. I planed on retiring from wiki, but I don’t want to until I am absolutely sure this argument closes. Jim, I actually can understand your point of view, but I will refuse to agree with it. But I ABSOLUTELY will not take this from Thorburn. I am getting pretty tired of arguing with you, and I don’t know why you just had to come here and post an ip. We both know you edit from multiple accounts. And you distorted the story. I will acknowledge that I made an edit to the article. But after you changed it, I did not revert you. I instead asked you on your talk page to work with me for a consensus. You did not like that idea, and wanted an edit war. Then you changed the article to the way you wanted it, and requested a page protection hoping it would be locked in your format, a request that was denied. The page was blocked because of the edit warring, something you fail to acknowledge. I really don’t want anything to do with that article, and told you on the page I would refrain from editing, before you told the admin you would refrain. Then some anonymous ip wants to edit and you accuse me. I before you both jump to conclusions you will look into it and realize I am no sockpuppet. - Rockyobody (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users
 * I experienced an edit war with Rockyobody regarding the article Larry Elder. After a long unhelpful request for comment, Rockyobody unilaterally changed the article when the edit protection lifted in addition to editing related articles to further his point of view. I reported it to an admin and he edit protected Larry Elder again and wouldn't lift until we both came to a consensus.  Soon after an anonymous ip address User:71.175.27.49 posted a request to change the article in light of the new edit protection without any prior edits. After I told the admin that this new user wanted to edit the article and that I would voluntarily refrain from the article after the dispute with Rockyobody, Rockyobody also expressed his interest in no longer touching the article.  I only today realized that the ip address of the new anonymous user is from the same location as the other two on this list and his edits, although few, are in the same vein as Rockyobody's. Thorburn (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In addition I found yet another ip address editing the same articles as Rockyobody, and also a new username Eaglesfan619 who has been editing very similar articles, such as Michael S. Steele, Steve Laffey, and Larry Elder. In addition in an old user page has him quoted as being an Eagles fan.  Here on Michael S. Steele he is bringing support to his side by agreeing with himself. Thorburn (talk) 05:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * User:Eaglesfan619 submitted two sockpuppet cases against the reporter, whilst attempting to remove his name from this case. Mayalld (talk) 08:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Reviewing IP WHOIS information, all the IPs are registered to Verizon, with 3 out of the four on different ranges. The IPs geolocate to either West Chester or Feasterville Trevose, both of which who are in Pennsylvania, USA. Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 08:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

without prejudice to re-opening. The disruption has stopped without us ever getting to the bottom of it. Time to move on. Mayalld (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions