Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Qui1che

User:Qui1che

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by

CleanUpX (talk) 09:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Evidence

I have good reasons to suspect that user papageno aka Qui1che has resorted to using multiple anonymous IPs to make edits to Unproven health risks  repeatedly using one of those free Multiple-Proxy softwares. Persistent reverts to the current version of "Unproven Health Risks" were made by the following user(s)


 * 17:05, 26 April 2008 66.91.107.145 (Talk) (37,458 bytes) (Removing and fixing un-encyclopaedic content. Do not revert. Discuss changes first (I do not work for "teh industry"))


 * 22:10, 27 April 2008 77.12.227.249 (Talk) (37,458 bytes) (Undid revision 208396860 by 88.76.51.168 (talk) Reverting HR to a good version. Please AGF, do not make wild accusations.) (undo)


 * 18:52, 28 April 2008 86.140.107.212 (Talk) (37,455 bytes) (Undid revision 208792279 by 88.77.210.113 (talk) Undoing vandalism and attack edit by sock of banned user) (undo)

A Whois check on these IPs reveal the following:


 * IP Location:	 United States	 Honolulu	 Road Runner Holdco Llc

Resolve Host:	 cpe-66-91-107-145.hawaii.res.rr.com IP Address:	 66.91.107.145


 * IP Location:	 Germany	 Telefonica Deutschland Gmbh

Resolve Host:	 brln-4d0ce3f9.pool.mediaWays.net IP Address:	 77.12.227.249


 * IP Location:	 United Kingdom	 Leicester	 Bt-central-plus

Resolve Host:	 host86-140-107-212.range86-140.btcentralplus.com IP Address:	 86.140.107.212

1. As can be seen, these IPs originated from United States, Germany and United Kingdom. It is highly likely that an 'Anonymous Proxy software' has been used to generate these different proxies to make it appear as though many different users from around the globe support the same argument. It is well-known that such a software can easily generate multiple IPs from different parts of the world and hide the real IP.

2. These three numeric IPs were unanimous in their assertion of the current version. However they were all new users who have made only edits to this section and have not engaged in other edits in Wikipedia. In other words, these three IPs were expressly created for the purpose of supporting the same POV.

3. They have avoided any discussion in the talk page of Wi-Fi. Only user papageno (talk) has openly advocated the same version in the talk page and has denied any association with these numeric IPs. In other words, he has the intention of sock puppetry and deceiving other WP editors into thinking that many users from around the world support his POV. In the talk page of Wi-Fi. papageno (talk) wrote:

"I did not change the section header to “Unproven health risks”; I am not related to any users with only numeric IPs who have made edits recently or in the past; I am not related to any of the cited sockpuppets; I only edit under my account, and have been editing only on my account since 2004-06-05. Please stop accusing me of vandalism in the edit summaries when you make changes to or revert edits made by users with numeric addresses or accounts other than papageno: it’s not me."

4. If these numeric IPs have no association with user  papageno, IP  77.12.227.249 wouldn't have been so outraged (as evident from his edit summary "Please AGF, do not make wild accusations." after  the following revert to his edit was made by another user


 * 21:24, 26 April 2008 88.76.51.168 (Talk) (39,595 bytes) (reverted vandalism by .papageno (talk See Discussion.)

In other words, if these people are not the same user, why should IP  77.12.227.249  bother whether papageno (talk has been wrongly accused?

5. papageno has written volumes to support his POV in the Wi-Fi talk page. Why did he not make any reverts or edits on the section Unproven health risks himself?? Why should the reverts supporting his POV be done instead by these three numeric IPs (whom  papageno has denied he has any association with)?? The editing patterns and idiosyncrasies of these three numeric IPs and papageno (talk) are very similar. The evidence is simply too overwhelming. It is a clear-cut case of abusive editing, wilful deception and sockpuppetry.


 * Comments

I would like to respond to the points made by the honorable accuser in order.

Re Point 1


 * I presume user CleanUpX has traced these IPs correctly. Actually, I see now that this is a WP template that checks IP addresses, so I presume they are correct. There is no response possible to this point.

Re Point 2


 * This is an assertion. I would agree with user CleanUpX that the IPs he cites as having made changes to the article do all appear to be engaging in reverts that support one POV.

Re Point 3


 * “They have avoided any discussion in the talk page of Wi-Fi.” I agree, the IP address users who made revert changes to the article have not made any contributions to the article Talk page.


 * “Only user papageno (talk) has openly advocated the same version in the talk page and has denied any association with these numeric IPs.” Firstly, this is incorrect; I made one full revert of the changes made by an IP address changer 88.7X etc, who I think may be the person who is my accuser; this was a mistake on my part, which I regret. I should have engaged the editor from the start on the discussion page, instead of blindly making a revert. Since recognizing my error, I have written on the Discussion page extensively about content changes I think should be made to the new version promulgated by user 88.7X (and about my error in making a blind revert). I would say the POV of view represented by the content changes I have suggested is similar to that of the version over which an edit-war seems to be underway. However, I am not tied to the old version, and have not advocated for its return and do not now advocate for its return. I would be glad to work with any and all users to work from the new version promulgated by 88.7X etc. I have said so in the Discussion. I have asked the user 88.7X etc who may be my accuser here to move past and to focus on the content changes I would like to see added.
 * Secondly, yes, I agree: I would appear to be the only user who has denied being associated with the numeric IP address users who were making revert changes. I did this because I saw the back and forth reverts, and wanted user 88.7X etc to understand that I was not making the changes; I truly wanted to and still would like to engage him on the Discussion page about the content. In addition, user 88.7X was claiming in his edit summaries that reverts were being made to changes undertaken by me. Since I was not making the changes, I wanted to point this out on the discussion page.


 * “In other words, he has the intention of sock puppetry and deceiving other WP editors into thinking that many users from around the world support his POV.” Because I have denied being IP address users, who happen to be from around the world, I must be be a sockpuppet. I'm sorry, but I don't follow this logic. Because I have claimed I am innocent, I must be guilty?


 * “quotation from Wifi talk page” This is an authentic excerpt from the talk page.

Re Point 4


 * I have no idea why IP user 77.12.227.249 made the comments he or she did in the edit summary in question.

Re Point 5


 * “papageno has written volumes to support his POV in the Wi-Fi talk page.” This is correct. It is my understanding that this is what one is supposed to do when one is treating a subject that may be controversial. I have invited all users to comment on my comments about content on the Talk page, but as of yet, no one, not even user 88.7X etc, has done so.


 * “Why did he not make any reverts or edits on the section Unproven health risks himself??” Reverts are not the answer; taking the matter up in the Talk page is, as a way to finding consensus. I have attempted to start a discussion as a start to that process, but, as mentioned, at this point to no avail.


 * “Why should the reverts supporting his POV be done instead by these three numeric IPs (whom papageno has denied he has any association with)??” I have no idea why the IP address users chose to make the edits they made.


 * “The editing patterns and idiosyncrasies of these three numeric IPs and papageno (talk) are very similar.” This is simply untrue. The numeric IP addresses engaged in multiple reverts. I, on the other hand, have attempted to follow WP prescripts: taking controversial matters to the Talk page; being civil, for example, thanking user 88.7X etc for his/her comments; and focusing on content, not the editors, for example, writing extensive comments about content changes that I wanted to see, then inviting users to comment. There is extensive evidence on the talk page of another controversial health and technology page Talk:Mobile phone radiation and health, of my having taken a similar reasoned, calm and polite approach many times — and in so doing having avoided edits wars and excessive editing conflict. I have a long history of edits on countless other pages over many years, none of which is in keeping with style of which I am here accused. The IP address users' edits are more in keeping with the style of other users accused or guilty of sockpuppetry, reported by user CleanUpX or others, who have been active in health and technology pages like WiFi, Mobile phone radiation and health and Electrical sensitivity. I have no evidence to support or refute this assertion; I merely offer it as a possible alternative.

Summary


 * The case presented is completely underwhelming. The edits in question to the WiFi page do not correspond at all to my style. I have followed WP guidelines in regards to trying address the matter that have caused this complaint. I have no association with any IP address users, active on WiFi or not. This case should be dismissed. papageno (talk) 06:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Additional comments added subsequent to the initial report by my honorable accuser, repeated from my talk page:


 * Hi Qui1che, I see that you do have a point here. Do not worry, if I have wrongly accused you, I will make a formal apology on your talk page and on Wi-Fi talk page. In the meantime, we should work toward finding out the real culprit who may have potentially tried to frame you. If you refer to the Wi-Fi talk page, another open proxy is creating havoc there. CleanUpX (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The IPs have only got edits to these articles (bar a bit of vandalism from 66.91.107.145, and a bit of historic vandalism from 86.140.107.212), which would imply that they're dynamic, not static. The possibility that they are three separate individuals in three separate locations is as, if not much more, plausible as the possibility that they are one person operating through open proxies. That, within a short period of time, they have reverted to a version supported by another user is nowhere near enough to draw a link between them. No action taken. GBT/C 12:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Conclusions