Misplaced Pages

:Sockpuppet investigations/Spudpicker 01: 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 11:28, 12 December 2011 editJeffro77 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers31,599 edits →Comments by other users← Previous edit Revision as of 09:44, 13 December 2011 edit undoJeffro77 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers31,599 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 18: Line 18:
An anonymous editor has used several IP addresses in the last few days (in addition to those explicitly stated above, mostly 98.92.x.x); WHOIS indicates they are '''''all'' dynamic BellSouth.net IPs geolocated to Carrollton, Georgia, USA'''. (e.g. in , ] admits to being the same person who made as ].) An anonymous editor has used several IP addresses in the last few days (in addition to those explicitly stated above, mostly 98.92.x.x); WHOIS indicates they are '''''all'' dynamic BellSouth.net IPs geolocated to Carrollton, Georgia, USA'''. (e.g. in , ] admits to being the same person who made as ].)
The editor has recently indicated his contempt for the system, taunting that because he has a dynamic IP, that "maybe you will succeed in getting this dynamic IP address banned for a few days too", limiting the repercussions against his inappropriate edits. He has been active at ] (and its Talk page) and at ]. The anonymous editor has been 'arguing' (really, just asserting that he ]) for several days for the deletion of ] (see ]). After being told an anonymous editor could not complete the nomination process, yesterday he 'threatened' that he would create an account ("Do you honestly think I cannot create a user account? really?") Today, a newly registered account, with no other edits, has claimed at the Talk page that, "I had to agree with the anonymous user above, this page seems to be highly slighted against witnesses, so I went ahead and completed the deletion request for the page for the anonymous user, since they weren't able to do so themselves." Whilst there would be no problem if the editor freely admitted to being the same person, there is a clear and deliberate attempt to mislead, by claiming that another editor supports his view. ] (]) 09:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC) The editor has recently indicated his contempt for the system, taunting that because he has a dynamic IP, that "maybe you will succeed in getting this dynamic IP address banned for a few days too", limiting the repercussions against his inappropriate edits. He has been active at ] (and its Talk page) and at ]. The anonymous editor has been 'arguing' (really, just asserting that he ]) for several days for the deletion of ] (see ]). After being told an anonymous editor could not complete the nomination process, yesterday he 'threatened' that he would create an account ("Do you honestly think I cannot create a user account? really?") Today, a newly registered account, with no other edits, has claimed at the Talk page that, "I had to agree with the anonymous user above, this page seems to be highly slighted against witnesses, so I went ahead and completed the deletion request for the page for the anonymous user, since they weren't able to do so themselves." Whilst there would be no problem if the editor freely admitted to being the same person, there is a clear and deliberate attempt to mislead, by claiming that another editor supports his view. ] (]) 09:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::The editor has since claimed the other nominator was a friend of his (ergo a meatpuppet).--] (]) 09:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

======<span style="font-size:150%">Comments by other users</span>====== ======<span style="font-size:150%">Comments by other users</span>======
<small>''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See ].''</small> <small>''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See ].''</small>

Revision as of 09:44, 13 December 2011

– A checkuser has declined a request for CheckUser, and the case is now awaiting a behavioural investigation.

Spudpicker 01

Spudpicker 01 (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/Spudpicker 01/Archive.


12 December 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


An anonymous editor has used several IP addresses in the last few days (in addition to those explicitly stated above, mostly 98.92.x.x); WHOIS indicates they are all dynamic BellSouth.net IPs geolocated to Carrollton, Georgia, USA. (e.g. in this edit, 184.37.2.116 admits to being the same person who made this edit as 98.92.249.28.) The editor has recently indicated his contempt for the system, taunting that because he has a dynamic IP, that "maybe you will succeed in getting this dynamic IP address banned for a few days too", limiting the repercussions against his inappropriate edits. He has been active at Chronology of the Bible (and its Talk page) and at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs. The anonymous editor has been 'arguing' (really, just asserting that he doesn't like it) for several days for the deletion of Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs (see Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#This whole page should be deleted). After being told an anonymous editor could not complete the nomination process, yesterday he 'threatened' that he would create an account ("Do you honestly think I cannot create a user account? really?") Today, a newly registered account, with no other edits, has claimed at the Talk page that, "I had to agree with the anonymous user above, this page seems to be highly slighted against witnesses, so I went ahead and completed the deletion request for the page for the anonymous user, since they weren't able to do so themselves." Whilst there would be no problem if the editor freely admitted to being the same person, there is a clear and deliberate attempt to mislead, by claiming that another editor supports his view. Jeffro77 (talk) 09:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The editor has since claimed the other nominator was a friend of his (ergo a meatpuppet).--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Comments by other users

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

Comment: If, as I suspect, Spudpicker01 is the same individual who has previously posted comments as an IP address and is now claiming to be someone else, it's an act of deception and bad faith, but at this stage it's a pretty minor infraction. He's being a nuisance, but it's probably better to ignore that and deal with any issues he raises later, should he choose to stick around. A matter of picking your battles. BlackCab (talk) 11:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. But this is not his first instance of demonstrating bad faith. As indicated above, he's previously shown contempt for Misplaced Pages's policies. He also did so when he earlier claimed, "I haven't violated Misplaced Pages's rules...YET." It would not seem that his behaviour is going to get better at this point.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Check declined by a checkuser. Per the privacy policy, CheckUsers do not publicly link accounts with IP addresses. WilliamH (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The IP is dynamic, so there is not a request to publicly link to a specific address. However, if the IP geolocates to the same area, it is a reasonable confirmation of sockpuppetry.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Categories: