Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/164.58.212.202

User:164.58.212.202

 * Suspected sock puppeteer


 * Suspected sock puppets
 * - indefinitely blocked
 * - indefinitely blocked
 * - indefinitely blocked
 * - indefinitely blocked
 * - indefinitely blocked
 * - indefinitely blocked
 * - indefinitely blocked
 * - indefinitely blocked
 * - indefinitely blocked
 * - indefinitely blocked
 * - indefinitely blocked
 * - indefinitely blocked
 * - indefinitely blocked
 * - indefinitely blocked
 * - indefinitely blocked
 * - indefinitely blocked
 * - indefinitely blocked
 * - indefinitely blocked
 * - indefinitely blocked


 * Report submission by
 * GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Evidence
 * This user appears to be using sock puppets to edit in a questionable manner. Some of it might fall into the category of content dispute, but at least one principle is being violated - user anonymity. This user and its sock puppets have at least twice tried to "out" a Wikipedia editor, referring to her by her supposed real name. (Note: it's in the edit summary, not the edit itself.) diff diff diff
 * Another sock puppet also added the editor's supposed name to the article as a purported friend of the person who is the article's subject. I believe this to be the same editor in part due to that the name is (reportedly) misspelled with an "E" on the end in all cases. diff
 * And the IP and a sock puppet have been keen to add this person's name to . diff diff


 * In addition, this user has appears to have used several single purpose accounts (mostly single edit accounts) to add uncited personal information on the subject, much of which does not follow the dictates of WP:BLP. Generally, this user seems focused on piling on information about the subject author's transexuality, to the point of prurience. I don't know that this is specifically prohibited behavior, but spreading it around multiple sock puppets does not seem conducive to generating consensus. It feels more like vandalism.
 * Here, the user and a sock puppet added a salacious entry from one of Pollack's books. I believe to be the same person due to the mention in the edit summaries of "Greenie babies and Biber Babies". diff diff. Other sock puppets have made reference to this book before. diff diff diff
 * Here, the user and sock puppets contend the the subject is multilingual, but don't cite a reference for this. I notice that like some of the edits above, the editor refers to the article's subject as "Ms. Pollack" in the edit summary. diff diff diff
 * I note that this user had been warned regarding its reinsertion of unsourced, potentially libelous material about the author's supposed disdain for transsexuals to the article for diff and that the one-edit  later added a uncited note about Rachel Pollack's transsexuality to the Pollack article. diff
 * In fact, there is a pattern of single-edit users making reference to the author's transsexuality: diff diff (from the IP - diff) diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff
 * There also seems to be an emphasis on the Pollack's Jewishness: diff diff diff (note the Wizard of Oz theme with the next two usernames) diff diff diff diff diff
 * And on Pollack's qualities and habits as a chef: diff diff This is a theme carried over into other articles on transgendered people such as . diff


 * I note that this user has been warned six times on its talk page about violations of WP:BLP. I'm not sure that all of these accounts are sock puppets of this IP, but I submit that it is using at least some of these accounts to avoid blame for continued disruption.

This is an issue another user has expressed concern about and checking through the edits appeared to show a pretty wide-ranging problem and I was in the process of asking advice on the best approach.
 * Comments

It is worth noting that Magyar Kiss Kiss edited another article Zsuzsanna Budapest which the IP has also edited /. The last year-and-a-half's worth of that article's history is almost completely made up of SPAs doing exactly the same thing as they are in the Rachel Pollack article and need checking here (with the exception of Queenlaese). There may be other similar pages with the same problem but these are the two main ones I am aware of as well as the IP and an SPA  on Eunuch.

The problem is that the user(s) are pushing an agenda that is violating WP:BLP as well as a consensus on how to deal with the issue sensitively which has lead to repeated reversions by a number of users. The persistence and single-minded nature (as well as the blatant BLP violation) take this out of the realm of simple disruptive editing and into the realm of vandalism. (Emperor (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC))


 * Several of these have now been confirmed at Requests for checkuser/Case/164.58.212.202. Many were too stale to be verified, but I think they fit the pattern. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 09:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * And it looks like the socks have been blocked indefinitely and the IP blocked for 6 months, so it seems like we're in good shape. I'm assuming no further action needs to be taken at this time. How do you close this case? --GentlemanGhost (talk) 10:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately it might be just the opening shot in a long encounter.

Might be best to leave it open at least a few weeks while we see if they come back. I'll freely admit to being a noobie on this stuff. 17:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anniepoo (talk • contribs)


 * Conclusions
 * There is nothing more to do here. Though I recognize the seriousness of the abuse, all of the registered accounts that have been active in the last three months are now blocked indef, mostly due to the efforts of Nishkid64. The IP at the head of the report has been hardblocked for 6 months. Many of the accounts made only a single edit. I suggest that this report be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Closed. per above assessment by . Cirt (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)