Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/71.217.206.152

User:71.217.206.152

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by

Baegis (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC) Diff's 1, 2, 3, 4 (this happened at least 6 total times), 5 (happened 6 times), 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
 * Evidence
 * Evidence

Explanation User:71.217.206.152 came to the Kent Hovind article and tagged the article with an erroneous NPOV tag and removed the booking photo (diff's 1 & 2) from the article. The editor in question reinserted the tag and removed the photo 6 more times (diff's 3 & 4 shown). This was reverted each time. On the image page, he tagged the article as a copy vio a total of 6 times (diff 5 shown). Editor was blocked at 14:13 and the 2nd account made the 1st edit at 14:15 which was to reinsert the copy vio on the image page (diff 6). 2nd account was blocked by user:Arthur_Rubin for abusing sock puppet accounts. 2nd account was unblocked and created his version of an "NPOV" article (diff 8) which is actually a whitewash of all the well-sourced controversy surrounding the article's subject. The 3rd account appears and inserts the 2nd accounts version of the article (diff 9). After bot reverts to the article, the 4th account shows up and reverts back to the previous account's version of article (diff 10). Finally, the 5th account comes in and reverts to the version of the previous 2 accounts (diff 11). This is a pretty obvious case of socking and has led to the protection of what was once a fairly stable article with minimal vandalism, considering it's subject and related matters. The evidence points towards a pattern of abuse and the editor in question seems bent on continual vandalism. The CU case was declined by Thatcher who gives his reasoning here on the grounds that CU case was not needed. It appears that the main account is now L33t-Geek (based on recent posting history), so I would recommend blocks on the others and probably a shorter block on the L33t-Geek account. Baegis (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

So what is this? You disagree with me making Kent Hovind more neatural so you accuse me of sockpuppeting. First off this is my only account and the IP is mine, I originally made my edits from that before registering this account now just use this account. I don't know what these other accounts are or anything.--L33t-Geek (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * In closing I just want to one quick thing: WP:AGF and WP:BITE.-L33t-Geek (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK I just have to add this, I was looking at Baegis' User Page and it starts off saying "Sockpuppet Accusations: 5"Seriously does he get off on accusing people or something?-L33t-Geek (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats the number of times that I have been accused of being a sockpuppet. Baegis (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also I did a whois at arin.net for the two IPs just to show they couldn't both be me:
 * IP 71.217.206.152
 * Which is my IP and goes to my ISP Qwest
 * OrgName:   Qwest Communications Corporation
 * OrgID:     QCC-22
 * Address:   1801 California Street
 * City:      Denver
 * StateProv: CO
 * PostalCode: 80202
 * Country:   US
 * IP 168.156.174.49
 * One of the IP's in question which I've never seen
 * OrgName:   Center for Information Services
 * OrgID:     CIS-70
 * Address:   3101 Northup Way, Suite 100
 * City:      Bellevue
 * StateProv: WA
 * PostalCode: 98004
 * Country:   US
 * L33t-Geek (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See Thatcher's comments on the CU case. Baegis (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See Thatcher's comments on the CU case. Baegis (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Endorse per WP:DUCK. Having unblocked L33t-Geek myself a while ago with clear instructions to avoid such problems, it is clear that he has continued to edit tendentiously and to attempt to avoid scrutiny by editing from several locations and accounts.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  14:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * How does Thatcher get the IP's are from the same cty when they appear to be from siffrent states, I don't understand how that works. I've looked closly at this so-called proof and it appears the edits from

All were made while I was offline, they appear to have seen y NPOV rewrite and made it live I guess or something, but there is nothing I have done from this account or my IP to show any relation to these other edits.--L33t-Geek (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Ok so I was doing some reading in Sock_puppet and it says "Keep in mind there can be multiple users who are driven to start participating in Wikipedia for the same reason, particularly in controversial areas such as articles about politics, religion, or articles for deletion." Specifically notice Religion is on that list, I thin that may be important to note, also the article states that "New users are unknown quantities. Stay around a while and make good edits, and your record will speak for itself. That generally is the only real way to prove that you are not anyone's puppet;" and if you noticed since I read the policies I have not broken any since the unbanning all I am tryin gto do, all my original intent is to fix scewed articles like Kent Hovind, I may not have much of a record but if you do not ban this account you will see for yourself in time with my edits.--L33t-Geek (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yet, for some strange reason, the other accounts have not made any subsequent edits. I already established that the L33t-Geek account appears to be the primary one.  Baegis (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

How about some action?
Ok, seriously, this guy keeps disrupting the same article. Would someone like to step up and place a hard block on the IP range (edu network) and block these accounts. Even though Guy semi-protected the page, it's bound to happen again when you get a nutter like this. Baegis (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering this statement, this case is as good as closed. Baegis (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

--Jayron32. talk . contribs 05:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ that 168.156.174.49, KHRulz, KentIsAwsome, KHManiac and 168.156.174.63 can all be treated as one user, based upon technical evidence. FT2 (Talk 18:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)