Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Saj2009/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets




Evidence submitted by Daedalus969
The user and these IPs have some constructive edits, but overall they have been slow-edit warring against consensus for quite some time now. Before, I didn't have anything to link these IP socks to this user, but now I do:


 * Edit by Saj
 * Edit by first listed IP

The rest of the IPs in the list have done the exact same thing on this article; if one were simply able to check the history, you would see what I mean.

Aside from editing against consensus, and refusing to respond to the other concerns of the editors, the abuse here would be possible sanction evasion, as the admin MuZemike previously warned them against continuing to edit war. Directly after that, the IP shows up and makes the exact same edit. I've grown tired of this abuse. I hope something can be done about this.

As for the CU, this is disruptive sockpuppetry that has gone on for some time now. CU is needed to determine if these IP socks are indeed used by this editor, and thus the editor would be using them to avoid implications of further edit warring against consensus, after being warned by an admin to stop, under the threat of a block if further edit warring was done.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 20:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Per Shirik's comment below, I've separated some of the similar IPs and used the rangeblock calculator on those. Here is what I got:


 * (up to 2048 users would be blocked)
 * (up to 4096 users would be blocked)
 * (up to 65536 users would be blocked)

Would a rangeblock on at least the first be possible?—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 19:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Range is too active to block directly -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 14:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * - Checkusers normally do not disclose links between accounts and IPs. Moreover, no CU is necessary here as we are talking about a soft block at best. T. Canens (talk) 08:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ❌. The fair use issue looks localised to a few pages; if it happens again, I'd semi-protect the pages.  If the 123.23x.x.x range edit-wars again, soft block it.  If the 122.172.x.x range edit edit-wars, bring it back to SPI so we need to find a smaller range. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like anything needs to be done here at the moment. T. Canens (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)