Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/76.189.110.167/Archive

76.189.110.167

76.189.110.167 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

27 August 2012

Suspected sockpuppets

76.189.108.102 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Evidence:

WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faithful Word Baptist Church, has some of the following diffs in context
[1][2], erroneous opinions stated as facts on a noticeboard, and escalatory language; even though there is no previous interaction between the two of us
[3], IP denies having an account
[4], IP implies that the reference to StAnselm is the result of interaction since Aug 24. States that assumption of good faith is more important than reason.
[5], first edit as a Wikipedia editor is to revert an admin
[6], second edit is also a revert
Within two hours the page is protected due to "edit warring/content dispute" [7]

Review of the John Roberts page history shows that another IP started the revert warring: [8]

In these diffs both 76.189.108.102 and 76.189.110.167 praise the skill of 108.36.80.228.
Other articles edited show similar themes, including SPLC (Faithful Word Baptist Church is an SPLC target)

[9], notice of discussion on BLPN
[10], question posed at BLPN, no response for 24 hours. Unscintillating (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Case reopened This SPI was closed less than ten hours after the ~~above~~ below comment. I responded at WT:SPI as follows:

hasty close of an SPI
I filed an SPI yesterday. RL took me away from the computer, and I have returned to find the SPI case closed with less than ten hours allowed for me to respond to a question. The one respondent to the evidence doesn't dispute that the record shows that both accounts are controlled by the same editor. The respondent doesn't dispute that the editor has been disruptive and uncivil. The respondent doesn't dispute that the IP editor has been deceptive about the use of alternate IP addresses. The respondent argues that the IP address is part of a dynamic IP range. However, the pattern of usage is not explained by dial-up service. And the argument of a dynamic IP address misses the point that the IP editor is not self-identifying as having a dynamic IP range, choosing instead to hide such IP addresses. If no further evidence is needed, can we get these IP addresses warned or blocked? Otherwise, must I now open a new case? Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The closing administrator or clerk promptly agreed to reopen the case. Unscintillating (talk) 23:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response Regarding the questions ~~above~~ below, I think that 76.189.108.102 needs to first answer the question I asked at BLP/N, here, "Do you agree or deny that you have previously edited as Special:Contributions/76.189.110.167?". Unscintillating (talk) 23:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response The idea that we can assume that these two IP addresses are used by the same user is refuted by 76.189.108.102. In this diff, I state that reasonable people can conclude that 76.189.108.102 has been editing for more than three days. 76.189.108.102 explains or at least implies that the reference to StAnselm is the result of three days of editing. In this same diff the editor explicitly rejects "claiming what 'reasonable people can conclude,' " The editor has acknowledged awareness of this discussion by removing the notice from his/her talk page, so has had opportunity for discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 03:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Those are two dynamic IPs in the same range. It's quite normal that a person can get a new IP of the same range. If they look like the same person, simply treat them as one account.
If you have strong reason to believe that the editor in question has a named account and that they are inappropriately editing anonymously (per WP:ILLEGIT) then please list your evidence above. Otherwise I don't see there's anything to do here.
Amalthea 10:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unscintillating, please don't read more into my words than there is. I may not have disputed some things, but in this case it simply means that I haven't looked at those claims. I'll be more explicit:
- Correct, by all appearances the edits made by the two IPs were made by the same person. Edit timings are continuous, articles match, both IPs in the same dynamic range. It is obvious to assume so, and you should treat all edits as such.
- I disagree that a change of the dynamic IP like this means it was done to deceive. It is very common for dynamic IPs to change like that, especially during the night (manual or automatic router shutdown, ISP disconnect, ...). The fact that the last edit before and the first edit after the change were made to same article connects the IPs so obviously that it makes no sense to suspect intent to deceive.
- No anon editor is required to "self-identify" as having a dynamic IP. Why would you think so? The English Wikipedia allows and welcomes anon editors, with all that it entails. Most anon editors editing here have dynamic IPs, and most editors are not aware of any of this.
Amalthea 09:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The two IPs you list above are not sockpuppets, full stop. If you don't believe my evaluation of the situation, ask other clerks or checkusers. Furthermore, the IP is not required to comment here. Amalthea 08:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, let me correct one misunderstanding, Unscintillating: These IPs are from a RoadRunner cable connection, not dialup. That being said, Amalthea's analysis is correct - the use of multiple IP addresses in a dynamic range is not a violation of WP:SOCK. If there are other issues with their editing, please feel free to address them at the appropriate venue. Since there's nothing to be gained by leaving this open any longer, I'm closing it again. —DoRD (talk) 11:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]