Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rrrr5/Archive

21 February 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Raising this after seeing WP:ANI which makes it clear that Rrrr5 has used the IP address to edit. I'd been wondering about the IP edits at Ica stones and this confirms my suspicions there. The last 3 articles edited by Treweeke Mall were also edited by Rrrr5, and on Ica stones the section edited was the same although a different (and still unreliable) source was used. But CU can presumably check this. Dougweller (talk) 11:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Also . This makes his vandalism at Ica Stones interesting as User:Rrrr5 reverted himself at least twice 1 2 (see September 13 through 17 edits at article) and ended up blocked via the IP. Rrrr5 did not edit during the block period. His socking also appears to be to avoid getting caught edit-warring. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  15:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Checked per the overlap of contention, article shadowing, and an already apparent measure of socking. It is extremely and for all extents and purposes ✅ that Rrrr5 = Treweeke Mall. I make no comment on the given IP in my capacity as a CU. WilliamH (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I blocked the puppet indefinitely and the master 2 weeks for evading the edit-warring block with a sockpuppet. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

08 May 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

IP address 88.104.218.11 edit warring and inserting the same synthesis-violating content as User:X Nilloc X after he was warned about edit warring. Looks like he is trying to use two identities to avoid hitting 4RR. Guy Macon (talk) 01:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn. Behavior stopped a couple of days ago. Please close this. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2012 (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

 * - Due to privacy concerns, IP addresses are generally not connected to named accounts by CheckUsers. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

12 May 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

X Nilloc X has been involved in edit warring a made-up casualty figure into the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) article against talk page consensus (for instance, and ) and was eventually blocked for this. 98.185.55.83 has a history of updating these made-up figures when they were in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) article (as examples,, ) and has now tried to edit them into the List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan‎ article. Both X Nilloc X and 98.185.55.83 have edited the relatively obscure Ica stones article (X Nilloc X:, , , 98.185.55.83: , , , , , ) and made basically identical changes to the List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan‎ article. Given the similarities in editing - and especially the unusual Ica stones cross over - I think that X Nilloc X is editing via this IP address in an attempt to evade the consensus on the Afghan casualty figures being unreliable which was reached at Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present). Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Further edit warring by 98.185.55.83 today: . The reason given for edit warring the dodgy numbers into the article in the edit summary is the exact same as that put forward by X Nilloc X (for instance, ). Nick-D (talk) 08:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

New X Nilloc X sock continuing his edit war: 208.54.35.248 (also arguing on talk page). --Guy Macon (talk) 06:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

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


 * There is not actual sockpuppetry there, unless X is using the IP's to support his reverts then there is not case here. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears to me that he or she is trying to avoid a second block for this edit warring by logging out. Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not think that falls under WP:SOCK does it? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I just reread the following:
 * Sock puppetry
 * Sock puppetry
 * I see several items on the inappropriate list that are plausible and none on the legitimate list.
 * Right before the sudden user [page blanking and disappearance of X Nilloc X and the sudden appearance of IP 98.185.55.83 pushing the exact same POV, two things happened that make me lean toward thinking that if they are the same person it is inappropriate.
 * First, on User talk:X Nilloc X Administrator Parsecboy wrote "Allow me to spell this out in no uncertain terms: what you are arguing on the article and related discussion boards is unequivocally wrong. If you continue to edit war, you will be blocked again, for longer and longer durations. Please stop" while applying a 24 hour block. It could be argued that changing identities is an attempt to evade the longer and longer durations.
 * Second, on Dispute resolution noticeboard I wrote "So your claim is that there is a consensus among editors that the calculation is an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources? Do you have any evidence to back up that assertion?" and at Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present) I wrote "X Nilloc X, you have failed to get a single editor to agree with your theory. Nobody on the article talk page agrees with you. Nobody on the Dispute resolution noticeboard agrees with you." and "You don't have consensus and you know it." It could be argued that changing identities is an attempt to make it look like his theory has two supporters instead of one.
 * BTW, if anyone doubts that these are the same person, the above section makes it very clear. The IP makes the exact same invalid argument with the same language that X Nilloc X was using. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked, obvious WP:DUCK here. Parsecboy (talk) 11:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You are wrong with this block, SOCK has not been violated. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And yet it's clearly the same person, edit-warring over the same exact issue. Explain how the block wasn't warranted. Parsecboy (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I analyzed the portions of WP:SOCK that may or may not have been violated in the section above (starting with "just reread the following..."). It would be useful to have a policy-based discussion as to what, if any, flaws you might have found in my analysis. Simply asserting that WP:SOCK has not been violated without discussing your reasoning is somewhat less useful. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Registered account indefinitely blocked by another admin as a sock of User:Rrrr5; List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan has been semi-protected for 1 week, or if it gets deleted, whichever comes first. --MuZemike 04:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)