Misplaced Pages

:Sockpuppet investigations/Akuri: 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 06:58, 2 July 2014 editVanamonde93 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators80,463 edits →Comments by other users← Previous edit Revision as of 08:00, 2 July 2014 edit undo101.0.94.152 (talk) →Comments by other usersNext edit →
Line 51: Line 51:
:::As I remember, there were claims that 101.x.x.x could not register an account and operate from a normal computer that connected directly to Misplaced Pages without using a VPN to avoid scrutiny. No reason was given. ] topics have been relatively quiet for a while, but in the past they were a battleground between SPA POV pushers and established editors, and the noise from R&I disputes raging on noticeboards was appalling. There must be no accommodation with IP-hoppers who use, or have used, proxies to avoid scrutiny. ] (]) 06:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC) :::As I remember, there were claims that 101.x.x.x could not register an account and operate from a normal computer that connected directly to Misplaced Pages without using a VPN to avoid scrutiny. No reason was given. ] topics have been relatively quiet for a while, but in the past they were a battleground between SPA POV pushers and established editors, and the noise from R&I disputes raging on noticeboards was appalling. There must be no accommodation with IP-hoppers who use, or have used, proxies to avoid scrutiny. ] (]) 06:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
::::I concur, jumping IPs like a flea on a hot brick to avoid scrutiny and cause general mischief is unacceptable, and I believe there is a myriad of Misplaced Pages policies in place to prevent it. ] ] ߷ ] 06:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC) ::::I concur, jumping IPs like a flea on a hot brick to avoid scrutiny and cause general mischief is unacceptable, and I believe there is a myriad of Misplaced Pages policies in place to prevent it. ] ] ߷ ] 06:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::I'm not actually trying to avoid scrutiny. While my default IP range was covered by a rangeblock, I was editing from proxies because I had no other choice, and my IP address automatically changes every hour or so. I don't have control of these things. I could register a new account to make my edits easier to track, but it ''would'' be socking if I were use a different account while Akuri is blocked. I know that my situation makes it difficult for me to edit in accordance with Misplaced Pages's policies, but please understand that I'm doing the best I can. ] (]) 08:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
::::{{EC}}In any case, I reported the user and the set of IPs because of their behavior at a single page, without prior knowledge of this case, and I believe the behavior on this page alone is block worthy. If the reviewing admin agrees with me, then the rest of their behavior, and any supposed extenuating circumstances, won't matter overmuch. ] (]) 06:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC) ::::{{EC}}In any case, I reported the user and the set of IPs because of their behavior at a single page, without prior knowledge of this case, and I believe the behavior on this page alone is block worthy. If the reviewing admin agrees with me, then the rest of their behavior, and any supposed extenuating circumstances, won't matter overmuch. ] (]) 06:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


Revision as of 08:00, 2 July 2014


101.0.94.173

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

Please note that a case was originally opened under Akuri (talk · contribs) but has been moved to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/101.0.94.173. Future cases should be placed under Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/101.0.94.173.


01 July 2014

– This SPI case is open.

Suspected sockpuppets

User:DavidJac123 was blocked for edit-warring on Race Differences in Intelligence (book), attempting to add copious amounts of content against consensus. On the talk page discussion, they appear to be tag-teaming with several IPs, who have acknowledged that they are one and the same person (this is the first edit by that particular IP). All the IPs have only been involved with this one content page. DavidJac has edited three content pages, but has more edits here than anywhere else.

Diffs of tag teaming; 1 2 3 4

There are several more instances; essentially, the entire talk page history for the past three days or so. This is the only page involved, so looking at the history should be fairly easy. I can supply more diffs, if needed.

I know that privacy policy dictates no CU in this case; but I believe the behavioural evidence is strong enough for a set of blocks or warnings. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC) Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

DavidJac123 apparently used the IPs 87.57.35.210 and 130.225.198.129 before he registered an account. Both of these IPs edit warred to add the same material that DavidJac123 later tried to add.

I don't think my own behavior has been that similar to him and his IPs. I've participated in the dispute on the talk page, but I haven't tried to restore the material in the article itself, because I know consensus doesn't support it (yet). I also asked DavidJac123 here to stop edit warring. 101.0.94.153 (talk) 07:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Normally try to avoid accusing people of sockpuppetry unless there is very strong evidence to support it, while the named account has more than just edits to the book article, the IPs have been quacking quite loudly. All have nearly identical edits and appear to be edit warring over that same book article.
As for the named user, the only way to know for sure there is for a clerk to endorse and a checkuser to gain the proof but there are certainly some feathers, a bill and webbed feet. ♥ Solarra ♥ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 04:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • This case probably relates to Akuri (talk · contribs) (indeffed) who had a strong interest in R&I issues. Akuri used 101.0.x.x IPs as can be seen by searching User talk:Akuri for "101.0"; also confirmed by this diff. It is very likely that those IPs are from PureVPN which provides a cheap service allowing users to edit as if they were at those IPs, when in fact the user could be anywhere in the world. That was raised at ANI Feb 2013 (see my comment "PureVPN Australian server is at 101.0.71.2, and that makes it very likely that all the 101.0.71.* IPs are used by PureVPN"). Note that 101.0.71.29 (listed above) has almost certainly been used by no one other than Akuri as their contributions are intermingled with those of 101.0.x.x relating to Akuri's genesis. Johnuniq (talk) 04:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Solarra: I was under the impression that privacy policy did not allow a user to be linked to an IP, so preventing a checkuser being run on the set I've given above. I might well be wrong, though. A CU is hardly required to establish the link between the IPs, seeing as they have pretty much acknowledged it themselves. Johnuniq, thanks for bringing that to my attention; this is not an area I typically edit, so I was unaware of that character. Although having looked him up, it seems as though they were also a sock, of an unknown master.....Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Vanamonde93: My mistake, only a handful of posts here at SPI, striked the checkuser comment. You are right though, the evidence speaks for itself. ♥ Solarra ♥ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 05:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you're right that I'm the same person as Akuri. But before you block all my IPs as socks of that user, please listen to what I have to say, because there's an underlying error here that you don't have to propagate.
All of the IP addresses I've edited from are listed here. There are two different IP ranges in the same area, 101.0.* and 110.32.*. (The other IP addresses are proxies.) Everyone has always understood that both the 101.0* and the 110.0.* range are me. I don't know why the 101.0* range looks like it's a VPN, but no one ever argued that about the 110.32.* range. I could not actually be "anywhere in the world" unless all of the 110.32.* IPs are proxies also.
Shortly before I registered an account, my IP range was blocked for an unrelated reason (see the discussion at user talk:101.0.71.29), so after that I had to edit from proxies. Then I got into a dispute with user:Mathsci, who was at the same time in a dispute with several sockmasters. When someone ran a checkuser on the Akuri account in May 2013, and saw that all of its recent edits had been from proxies (without being being aware of why I had to do this), they came to the conclusion that I must therefore be one of those sockmasters. The way that my account was blocked without carefully examining my history has made me into a poster child for admin sloppiness at the Wikipediocracy forum:
I don't care if Akuri is ever unblocked. I never wanted to use an account anyway. But I edited as IPs for more than a year before I had an account, and back then nobody thought I was a sock. I don't think the way I was forced to edit from proxies for a while, and was therefore assumed to be as a sock, should mean that I can't post anonymously from either of my default IP ranges like I was doing originally. 101.0.94.156 (talk) 05:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
As I remember, there were claims that 101.x.x.x could not register an account and operate from a normal computer that connected directly to Misplaced Pages without using a VPN to avoid scrutiny. No reason was given. WP:ARBR&I topics have been relatively quiet for a while, but in the past they were a battleground between SPA POV pushers and established editors, and the noise from R&I disputes raging on noticeboards was appalling. There must be no accommodation with IP-hoppers who use, or have used, proxies to avoid scrutiny. Johnuniq (talk) 06:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I concur, jumping IPs like a flea on a hot brick to avoid scrutiny and cause general mischief is unacceptable, and I believe there is a myriad of Misplaced Pages policies in place to prevent it. ♥ Solarra ♥ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 06:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not actually trying to avoid scrutiny. While my default IP range was covered by a rangeblock, I was editing from proxies because I had no other choice, and my IP address automatically changes every hour or so. I don't have control of these things. I could register a new account to make my edits easier to track, but it would be socking if I were use a different account while Akuri is blocked. I know that my situation makes it difficult for me to edit in accordance with Misplaced Pages's policies, but please understand that I'm doing the best I can. 101.0.94.152 (talk) 08:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)In any case, I reported the user and the set of IPs because of their behavior at a single page, without prior knowledge of this case, and I believe the behavior on this page alone is block worthy. If the reviewing admin agrees with me, then the rest of their behavior, and any supposed extenuating circumstances, won't matter overmuch. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Categories: