Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Rusty Trombone/Archive

This archive was moved from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/207.237.33.36/Archive

Report date April 22 2009, 07:14 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * Evidence submitted by —  Dæ dαlus Contribs 

The suspected sockpuppet comes out of nowhere to defend the suspected sock master, even though the suspected sock IP has at little to no activity for about a year.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  07:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added another sock, could someone block it please?—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  09:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by —  Dæ dαlus Contribs  07:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Checkuser is required to see if a rangeblock can be issued on this IP address, to prevent further block evasion. Also note that the original suspected sock master was blocked for harassment of others.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  07:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * 207.237.33.36 is a pretty stable IP, but that looks like the same person. Note that 207.237.33.0/24 is not very used, so you might be able to softblock it without much collateral. -- lucasbfr  talk 07:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * Softblocking 207.237.33.0/24.  MBisanz  talk 07:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Archiving. ~ fl 10:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Report date April 25 2009, 21:24 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * Evidence submitted by —  Dæ dαlus Contribs 

This user is probably a blatant sock, as per WP:DUCK, but I have other reasons for requesting this report, as seen below.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  21:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by —  Dæ dαlus Contribs  21:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Checkuser is required to make sure that this obvious sock is indeed a sock of the noted IP user which has been stalking and harassing me, and not a sock of a time long past, eg, a Grawp user sock. Checkuser is also required to find the new IP, if it is indeed the IP user, of the IP user, so a block, or possible range block can be issued.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  21:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Is there a reason that you believe that the user has moved on to another IP, or that a range block may be needed? —  Jake   Wartenberg  21:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the master account(first IP the user used/etc) has evaded a rangeblock before, so I wouldn't put it past him or her to do so again.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  22:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

— Jake   Wartenberg  02:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 06:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC) -
 * Conclusions
 * Nothing. Just hardblocked the IP. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 05:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Report date May 17 2009, 05:36 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Other Possibilities(past accounts used by other stalkers to stalk me)


 * Evidence submitted by User:Daedalus969

This obvious impersonator appears out of nowhere with an obvious single purpose, please note here, in which the IP user who has been stalking me noted that he was switching ISPs in order to continue to stalk and harass me. Please also note where the listed known accounts geo-locate to, in regards to the IP of this account, if a CU is preformed.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  05:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by —  Dæ dαlus Contribs  05:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

CU is required to make sure that this impersonator is indeed an account used by my stalker, and not some other random vandal, like Grawp. CU is also required to see if there is any rangeblock potential. Yes, I realize this user is already blocked, but as you can see from the history of this case, he doesn't like to go out quietly, and is quite persistent. Second of all, since I have not been very active in the past week, the likely hood that it is a random vandal is slim.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  05:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * to check into rangeblocks. Note that 207.237.33.0/24 was previously softblocked. Nathan  T (formerly Avruch) 13:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Daedalus696 is not obviously related to other listed accounts, from a technical perspective. Rangeblock looks like a bad idea at this time. – Luna Santin  (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Tagged all but Daedalus696 and one other which is already tagged as Genius(4th Power). Nathan <strong style="color:#0033CC"> T 21:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

-

Evidence submitted by Delicious carbuncle
This anon IP editor is quite obviously the same user that was blocked for a year as the result of this SPI case from April 2009 which relates to attempted outing and off-wiki harrassment of. They have continued to evade those blocks and their recent activity has mostly been attempting to troll me and disrupt issues in which I am involved. The user has been active on Wikipedia at least since 2008 -- see for example -- although they claim to be "kind of a noob". Checkuser may be useful in this case to discover accounts created by the IPs, but the connections between the IPs themselves should be clear enough from a look at the contributions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

(Note: Although there appears to be no actual User:Rusty Trombone, I am using that identifier to keep the SPI cases together.)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

From Defending yourself against claims: "You do not have to defend yourself against other claims, however bad, or engage in discussion about them, other than to note the claim is not relevant to sock puppetry. Claims and issues that are not relevant to account and IP abuse will almost always be ignored by the clerks and checkusers, and will often be removed."

As such, I will only address the sockPup investigation here.

I have posted from 3 different IP addresses: 38.109.88.196, 38.109.88.180, and my current IP 207.237.230.164.

Each of these 3 talk pages has links to the previously used IPs and includes a note that my IP automatically changes and is not within my control. This shows that I am not being "deceptive" but merely participating in Wikipedia as an Anonymous Editor, which, per the essay at WP:WAE, is to be welcomed.

I steadfastly deny ever having a Wikipedia account, and indeed, the most evidence that the sockpuppet investigation will find is that there are multiple editors editing from the Brooklyn/Queens area...which is hardly 'evidence'.

I encourage this investigation to proceed as the results will easily show what I say here is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.230.164 (talk) 04:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * After reviewing 41.213's comments below, I do see that I had been editing from 38.109.88.194. I guess it was overlooked.  I'm rather proud of the edits I made from that IP, and I hope those contributions will be reviewed. 207.237.230.164 (talk) 22:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 207.237.233.142, however, while with one similar edit summary, was not me. 207.237.230.164 (talk) 22:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
The fake title of this SPI request appears to be a deliberate act intended to cause offence and inflame argument. See Rusty trombone - "Rusty trombone is a euphemism for a sexual act in which a man stands with his knees and back slightly bent, with feet at least shoulder width apart in order to expose the anus." Please close and delete this SPI on that basis. Ash (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The title is simply reflective of a past SPI case, one that was renamed from the IP to the current name a year ago by an administrator. If this case is linked to that, there is nothing malicious on DC's part by using this name/term.  In the vein of the famous "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" saying, I think you need to chill out a bit. Tarc (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But i love the "at least shoulder-width apart" bit. How encyclopedic! I wonder if they have coaches? (You know, a guy in tight shorts with a whistle shouting "Rusty! Wider! Shoulder-width apart!"Bali ultimate (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and now for something useful -- the blue link above, which is indef-blocked, is the one to focus on.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you're wrong. In fact, the title was more referring to an original harassment SPA that had attacked me, .  The case should probably moved and fixed, as it wasn't done right the firs time.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 21:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Struck my comment as it is now assumed that Delicious carbuncle did not make up the name "Rusty Trombone". This was not apparent in the version of this SPI on 7 April before this case was renamed. Ash (talk) 07:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to assume - I did not make up the name (and that should have been clear from reading the case). Nor did the person who renamed the case but accidentally left off part of the name. I do not know if the IP currently under discussion is the same person behind User:The Rusty Trombone, but if anyone was trying to cause offence and inflame argument, it was that person. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is a discussion in which User:207.237.33.36‎ was blocked for a year (expiring April 25 2010) along with User:207.237.33.117 and User:207.237.61.168. The most active of the current IPs has been User:207.237.230.164 (about to come off a 55 hour disruptive editing block). This appears to be block evasion, along with apparent recent block evasion using User:69.86.55.52 which resolves to Long Island City in New York. Long Island City is in Queens, just on the Brooklyn border. The 207.xx ips resolve to Brooklyn. The 38.xx ips above also come from Long Island City. Bali ultimate (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of strings that tie these and other IP edits together. (While archiving is "preferred", there is no Wiki-rule saying blanking any section of your user page is unacceptable.) (While archiving is "preferred", there is no Wiki-rule saying blanking your user page is unacceptable.) "From WP:AATP : "Archiving one's own user talk page is optional and is preferred over deletion so that past discussions can be easily searched." Not mandatory, but preferred."

There's a couple you have self-reported (there are many more) and 38.109.88.194 was blocked last December for outing Daedalus. 41.213.131.3 (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

So, to make sure this gets seen, I've added some whitespace here:

207, you say that you are proud of the edits you made from the 194 address. This of course means, you are proud of your attempt to out me.

Reviewing admins should note this, concerning blocks.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 03:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
This seems to be a busy range, so can I get some diffs linking 207.237.33.* and 207.237.230.*? Tim Song (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, never mind, I'm convinced they are the same person. I'm hardblocking and  each for one year. Tim Song (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)