Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ss112/Archive

06 November 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The user and these IPs have updated chart positions on several articles and all have similar edit summaries. Also, if you check Ss112's user page he mentions that he has done a lot of editing as an IP under a lot of IP addresses. Oz  talk  06:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

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

I haven't intentionally sockpuppeted anything. I don't know that much about past people who have done it, but to me, it kind of carries the connotation that I've been doing something contentious on articles. I freely admit I edited under those IPs (they are indeed Australian IP addresses), because I did nothing wrong on them, and I don't aim to. I've been told in the past to log in, but sometimes I legitimately cannot be bothered. I know it seems like such a simple thing to do, but that is all this is. I have been editing Wikipedia for over five years now, I don't go around using IP addresses to put in things I think people can't trace back to me. If I wanted to do that, why would I bother having an account in the first place? I seen your edit summary identifying me on The X Factor (Australia season 3), Ozurbanmusic, but I didn't think anything of it, nor that I'd be accused of this. I didn't abuse anything. Reading the Wikipedia page on sockpuppeting, don't you have to prove I "utilis[ed] them in a disruptive, misleading, or unhelpful manner"? I see no such wording above even mentioning me in a bad way, so I'm unsure what this is for...  Ss 112  20:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If this is about me adding unsourced chart positions under IP addresses, if you're familiar with the way ARIA's website updates and australian-charts.com's updating following the new positions, it's pretty self-explanatory. I find the whole referencing or updating references for chart positions labourious. If I've cited australian-charts.com, the pages usually update a few hours after I include them. It's just that I don't log in. I'm in a rush to do it because it's something I've become accustomed to do every Sunday.  Ss 112  20:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I've edited under IPs before and checked the user contributions or gotten a notification for new messages, and even months or years prior to my editing on it, there have been other people editing using them. I'm pretty sure they shift around and people are just assigned random ones (that's actually probably how IP addresses generally work, I'm unfamiliar).  Ss 112  20:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Might be a little bit oversharing, but of course, if you ever see "Updated/Added peak of ~ in Australia (#~ this week)", it's obviously me. If I wanted to misuse/mislead, I certainly wouldn't be putting that in all my edit summaries. My catch-all summary is "Fixed things" or similar, because describing every little redirect I fix or grammar thing I improve takes too long sometimes for the edits I make. It's just my trademark thing.  Ss 112  20:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I was also accused before over the whole Luke Evans (actor) fiasco. I edited from IP addresses at University (because I get wary logging in on shared computers) and later at home because I didn't think it would be made into the issue it would. The user who accused me and I (I forget what their name was) talked on my IP's page, and another page (I really forget which), and I was accused of trying to back up my user's contributions by reinstating the same content/supporting the same point of view (for including his sexuality on the page). I know how it looked and it's hard to prove I didn't do it for those reasons, but I just couldn't see what the whole deal over not including sexuality was for other users. I felt like it was denying the existence of another gay person in the world. I just edited at different times for different reasons. I didn't readily admit at first that I was Ss112 to the other user because I knew it had developed into a disagreement, and I felt like he was being presumptuous and frankly, a little rude.  Ss 112  20:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, as I said to the user at the time, with me not logging in at home, it was another issue of me not bothering, not because I wanted to deceive anybody. It was just a contentious issue from the start, I shouldn't have even bothered editing it at all. Another user, William Bradshaw, has his comments struck out on the talk page of the actor's article now because he was "convicted" of sockpuppetry. It seems these things tend to develop around articles which gain attention externally...  Ss 112  20:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Both IPs geolocate to the same area. The 110 IP hasn't been used in four months, so I've left that alone. My guess is that the user just didn't log in to edit, but I've blocked the 220 IP for a day. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)