Misplaced Pages

:Sockpuppet investigations/98.92.187.224: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:43, 18 December 2011 editEl duderino (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,219 edits →17 December 2011: reply to repetitious (and false) claims of harassment← Previous edit Revision as of 06:08, 18 December 2011 edit undoTiptoety (talk | contribs)47,300 edits Close - clerks please archiveNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:




{{SPI case status|CUdecline}} {{SPI case status|close}}
<noinclude>__TOC__</noinclude> <noinclude>__TOC__</noinclude>
{{SPIarchive notice|98.92.187.224}} {{SPIarchive notice|98.92.187.224}}
Line 26: Line 26:
======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>====== ======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>======
*{{Declined}} - Per the ], we as CheckUsers can not publicly link an account to its IP address. That said, a clerk or patrolling admin can certainly take action against the above account/IP should they feel there is sufficient evidence. ] <sup>]</sup> 06:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC) *{{Declined}} - Per the ], we as CheckUsers can not publicly link an account to its IP address. That said, a clerk or patrolling admin can certainly take action against the above account/IP should they feel there is sufficient evidence. ] <sup>]</sup> 06:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
*] admitted above that the IPs are his. In the future, I strongly recommend that when logging out and editing in situations like this they make it clear who they are, and/or simply don't edit while logged out. That said, I do not feel this situation warrants any administrative action. As such, I am closing this with {{no action}} taken. It might be a smart idea for the two of you to avoid one another for a while. ] <sup>]</sup> 06:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
---- ----
<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. --> <!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. -->

Revision as of 06:08, 18 December 2011

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.

98.92.187.224

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

For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/98.92.187.224/Archive.


17 December 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Reverting back in same talk page content at Talk:Mad Men as the IP and making same type of claims regarding my editing as blocked user. Also: see this edit. Has to be the same as the now blocked IP. Lhb1239 (talk) 06:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Updated information: As two different IPs - first as 98.92.185.241, then as 98.92.187.224 (signing as "-Anon98") - this user posted on my talk page eight times over two hours - each time in an aggressive manner that became harassment. Not once did he ever identify himself as the same IP editor nor did he - after being reminded that if he already had an account he needed to sign in with it - admit he already had a registered account. Almost immediately after his IP was blocked, he logged in with a registered account ("El duderino") and the harassment continued on the IP pages and an article talk page - including a frivolous filing at the 3RR noticeboard involving me (which was subsequently removed by administrator King of Hearts). Also, see the following at AN/I. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Reply: Any harassment in this case is from User:Lhb1239. Much of what he says above is flat out wrong. He needs reminding that his removal of talkpage comments is what started this dispute and his persistent disruption there and elsewhere only exacerbated the situation. There was no harassment from my side. He keeps making these false allegations without diffs or any actual quotes. He seems to view my disagreement as 'personal attacks' etc. His repeated false claims and various attempts to get me blocked (ie, forum-shopping) might constitute harassment from him. He posted the above 'update' to Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Hostility_over_98.92.187.224_block where it's basically been ignored and will probably go stale. Also see User_talk:Malik_Shabazz#IP_harassment. El duderino (talk) 03:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Comments by other users

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

This is not a sockpuppet. I chose not to log in to my account because I did not have the details handy. Is this against policy? I believe the SP claim is invalid as I did not attempt to misrepresent myself as different editors. The complaining User did not like a talkpage discussion so he misinterpreted policy to fit his purview. El duderino (talk) 06:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • no Declined - Per the privacy policy, we as CheckUsers can not publicly link an account to its IP address. That said, a clerk or patrolling admin can certainly take action against the above account/IP should they feel there is sufficient evidence. Tiptoety 06:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  • El duderino admitted above that the IPs are his. In the future, I strongly recommend that when logging out and editing in situations like this they make it clear who they are, and/or simply don't edit while logged out. That said, I do not feel this situation warrants any administrative action. As such, I am closing this with no No action taken. It might be a smart idea for the two of you to avoid one another for a while. Tiptoety 06:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Categories: