Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/4.23.83.100


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:4.23.83.100

 * Suspected sock puppeteer


 * Suspected sock puppets


 * Report submission by
 * Michael Friedrich (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Evidence
 * Although Objectiveye rarely edits wikipedia, when he appears, 4.23.83.100 is almost always around him/her (like this). Objectiveye usually supports 4.23.83.100's edit.  To be accurate, Objectiveye reverts others' edits to 4.23.83.100's edit or the other way around.

Japan1 4.23.83.100 Objectiveye 

Japan2 4.23.83.100 Objectiveye

Korean swordsmanship 4.23.83.100 Objectiveye

Kumdo 4.23.83.100 Objectiveye

At talk:Kumdo, Objectiveye explains about 4.23.83.100's edit, calling 4.23.83.100 "the writer", as if s/he knew what "the writer" was thinking. It seems to me like Objectiveye is pretending to be a differnt person in order to show that there's someone supporting 4.23.83.100.

One of the biggest reasons I suspected Objectiveye to be a sockpuppet of 4.23.83.100 is these two edits and. Objective eye states "You can't just leave out the Editing Agency" and 4.23.83.100 states "The Editing Agency by Japan is a part of Asian history, you can't just leave that out" (see the Edit summary). They are too similar expressions.

Objective suddenly states something about Emperor Kammu, Zen, rice cultivation, 16th century pottery, Buddhism, Sumo, sword-making, introduction of Chinese writing system for some reason and says "it all has to mention Korea" and that "they all have arguements like this page" although s/he has never edited any of them. But actually, 4.23.83.100 has edited them ( Emperor Kammu, Zen, 16th century pottery, Buddhism, Sumo, Chinese writing system). If Objevtiveye were not the same person as 4.23.83.100, how should he have known there were such arguments?

What Objectiveye says and does shows that s/he is the same person as 4.23.83.100. S/he pretended to be a different person in order to show that there's someone supporting 4.23.83.100 as I stated above. This must be against the rules. Michael Friedrich (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have noticed similarities in Objectiveye's and 4.23.83.100's writing habits. In the diffs provided by Michael Friedrich above, and a few from a quick perusal of the two users' contributions,  the two consistently misspell:


 * there as their (| Objectiveye; first paragraph, fifth line, last word.) (| 4.23.83.100; second red paragraph)
 * you're as your (| Objectiveye; second paragraph) (| Also Objectiveye) (| 4.23.83.100)


 * a lot as alot  (| Objectiveye, twice in the first paragraph) (| Also Objectiveye; third paragraph from the bottom) (| 4.23.83.100)


 * argument as arguement (| Objectiveye; first paragraph) (| 4.23.83.100; eighth red line from the bottom)

One thing that really clinches it for me is that both of them talk about things they remember from their East Asian Studies courses (and they both spell it "east Asian studies courses"): | Objectiveye | 4.23.83.100

I think that these two users are either sockpuppet/sockpuppeteer or someone who very, very frequently forgets to log in. Either way, they look to me like the same person. SunDragon34 (talk) 08:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * If possible, I'd like to request IP check. But I'm sure  that they are the same person even if they are using different IPs.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If these two are the same person, and I am fairly certain that they are, This user may just be frequently forgetting to log in.  The only things that trouble me are the seemingly deceptive behavior mentioned my Michael Friedrich above and the username "Objectiveye".  I don't see how this user can refer to him/herself as "the writer" without being up to something.  We should ask the user about that.  I think that s/he can solve the problem by editing only as Objectiveye.  SunDragon34 (talk) 08:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think so because s/he almost always edit as 4.23.83.100. Objectiveye rarely appears.  This cannot be explained by saying "he often forgets to log in." S/he's using Objectiveye as a sock puppet.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Has the user been contacted yet about this case?  I can think of two different options we could give him/her.  Either s/he uses the current account, Objectiveye, as his/her main account and stops acting like they are two different people, or s/he can start a clean account and we can block Objectiveye.  Does that sound right? (This is my first sock puppet case and I'm not familiar with the usual procedure to deal with this kind of situation.)  SunDragon34 (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * i think this report is personal attack. Condemned someone as a sock puppet although there's no evidence i am not involved with Objectiveye. do not mistake. i think reporter want terminate this user, because he and Objectiveye engaged edit war. Manacpowers (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not a personal attack to raise questions about an account based on evidence. See WP:WOLF. Jehochman Talk 21:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If this is a user playing with two accounts, so long as they are forthright with us, a warning will suffice. They should use one account going forward, either the IP or the named account. There is a chance that we may have uncovered a sock farm. The response of User:Manacpowers above, and their editing history suggests that possibility.  I recommend filing a request for checkuser on the IP, Objectiveye and Manacpowers.  Specify code G, and reference this page as the evidence.  Also provide a brief summary of what has been said here.  Jehochman Talk 21:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * sorry but you doubt me. i'm not a same person with IP, Objectiveye. this is 100%. Manacpowers (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to believe you, but I am also inclined to check whether the IP has any other socks afoot. Jehochman Talk 22:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * thank you. but i am not relation with 4.23.83.100, and Objectiveye. this is 100%. Manacpowers (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jehochman. We should check whether the IP has any other socks.  (Don't misunderstand.  I am not saying Manacpowers is a sock puppet.)--Michael Friedrich (talk) 04:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * S/he didn't log in although s/he was asked to log in if s/he was Objectiveye (User talk:4.23.83.100). S/he does not even answer whether s/he is Objectiveye or not. It seems to me that s/he denies s/he is Objectiveye or that s/he has no intention not to forget to log in.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 05:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have filed the checkuser request and pleaded with the IP and Objectiveye to come talk to us. I guess all we can do now is wait--either for the checkuser to go through and reveal the truth of the situation or for the IP or Objectiveye to come and talk to us about it.  SunDragon34 (talk) 07:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually suspect that is the same person too.  67.183.7.34 is the one who added the information about Editing Agency of Korean History (now called Korean History Compilation Committee) to Kumdo in first and 4.23.83.100 added some more information about it and modified 67.183.7.34's edit soon after him/her.  The very same thing happend in Korean swordsmanship too.  The editing attitude of those two look alike too (they edit one article many times).  Objectiveye supported his/her edit.  It seems to me that 4.23.83.100 went to somewhere like a library or an internet café and edited the articles, and then modified them after s/he came back home.   I don't know whether it is illegal or not.  I don't know whether it can be proved or not either.  But, at least, people will think that there are two persons who support the edit.  Using more than 2 IPs is misleading if there is only one person.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 17:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved at Requests for checkuser/Case/4.23.83.100. Jehochman Talk 08:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Conclusions