Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HelloAnnyong (talk | contribs) at 17:32, 23 December 2010 (Marking case as closed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Breein1007

Breein1007 (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/Breein1007/Archive.

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

19 December 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• 74.198.9.161 (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 six hours.

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Previously Breein1007s account had received many blocks:, and he knew that he couldn't continue with his long time problematic and disruptive behavior with that account because he was probably going to get topic banned from the A-I conflict. So he basically used an IP sock instead of his main account to continue with his edit warring, problematic behavior so he could avoid scrutiny and avoid sanction. The reason why nothing happened in the last SPI was because I did not say openly here that Breein edited from Ontario Canada, and that his ISP was Rogers, the exact same location and ISP as the IP sock he later used. But I am now. Breein removed his IP that he used before he registered here:. His IP has the same location and ISP as the IP sock in the last SPI: There was also an Enforcement request at that time because of things he had done with that IP sock:. A couple of days after the last SPI was opened Breein returned to his registered main accountant and added the "retire tag" Nothing happened in both the SPI and Enforcement because I did not openly bring forward this evidence and he stopped using his IP sock.

Now a new IP address has shown up: this obvious sock goes back to Onatario Canada and uses Rogers as ISP, (same as Breeins main account and his previous sock) and his first four edits are reverts of my edits at different articles: (Breein also has a history of stalking other editors edits:)

• In this revert he calls my edit: ""vandalism against source". The first source in the Gamla article shows that it did not start out as a Jewish city. Breein also has a history of calling other editors edits as "vandalism"

• In this edit , he removes "East Jerusalem" and re ads the category "Christianity in Israel" for a location that is internationally recognized as occupied Palestinian land and not part of Israel. In the edit summary he says "pov"

• At the Temple Mount article he reverts me, re ads the Israel location map for a location that is internationally recognized as occupied Palestinian land, and not Israel and says "radical pov against talk consensus", but if you look at the talkpage, there is no consensus to have the Israel location map or to have East Jerusalem as its location.

• He also followed me to a fourth article: . In this edit the IP removes a Citation needed tag in the lead of the article while saying: "Source not necessary in lede. Given in body.", Breein did the exact same thing from his main account: "lead doesn't need citations"

• And then he makes a revert at a fifth article: . Breein has edited that article before:

So Breein1007 is now continuing with his disruptive behavior with this IP sock, while pretending to be "retired" with his main account. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

SD, if you have a problem with IP editing, please submit it to AE. Otherwise this SPI is just a fishing expedition. I suggest declining this SPI request.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Also this SPI violates wp:outing and some parts of this should be over-sighted and SD should be warned.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with IP edits, I have a problem with Breeins socks. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

If you do not have problem with this IP editing pattern, I see no reason for SPI. Breein is neither blocked, nor topic banned.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, I have a problems with Breeins socks. This IP is Breeins sock. Breein is not blocked or topic banned because he used his previous sock to continue his disruptive behavior as can be seen in the enforcement request I linked to above. Had he made those kinds of edits with him main account he would have been sanctioned. And now he is continuing his disruptive behavior with his new sock instead of his main account to continue to avoid sanctions. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

I think there is some previous background to this case which is known to the checkusers. Even so, this case probably needs to be closed on behavior. There may not be enough data here to be confident this is actually Breein1007. EdJohnston (talk) 01:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

•  CheckUser is not for fishing -- Avi (talk) 08:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Further evidence that gives us 100% evidence that the last IP was his sock, breeins IP can be seen here: , its: 174.112.83.21

While the last sock in the archive that he and his sock was never blocked for was: 174.112.83.21. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• You are bringing a different IP than the one in the report, and it's months old, so any data is stale. Any CU request here smells strongly of fishing. Please remember that continued unfounded or unsupported accusations of sockpuppetry and requests for CU is considered harassment. -- Avi (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The comment above is not for this sock, but for his old sock, it shows that Breein and the old sock that he was never blocked for has the exact same IP, combine that with the behavioral evidence in the archive, so how is it fishing? Why haven't you blocked Breeins main account yet? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

On what grounds? IPs change and are reallocated. You have not brought any evidence other than someone was caught in Breen's block. You should know what it is like to be hounded by CU requests, why are you doing this to others without sufficient evidence? -- Avi (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Look at all the behavior evidence here: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, I'm not really clear on what's going on here. Now that the CU has been declined, is SD asking for us to compare this IP to Breein based on behavior? Or is this still a push for CU? — HelloAnnyong 18:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I believe its him based on both location and behavior evidence, CU was declined but the IPs speaks for themselves, Breins main account goes back to the exact same location.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
• I will leave the decision as to whether or not admin action is necessary to other admins, but this request does not provide sufficient justification for a CU run, IMO. -- Avi (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree that there isn't justification for a CU check here. But I think it would be fair game to act on 74.198.9.161 based on behavioral evidence. — HelloAnnyong 18:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Ive added some more evidence above for this new IP: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Even if it IS Breen, which we don't know, there is no violation in that edit. There is no 1RR, let alone 3RR, and the "Breen" account has never edited that article. SD, please explain to me why what you are doing now should not be considered harassment? I am not seeing violations even if this 74 is Breen. At this point, does anyone else believe that there is reason to keep this request open? -- Avi (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen his disruptive behavior with his last sock? and now this new one? . He is continuing with the same disruptive behavior as he did with his main account so he can avoid sanctions and nothing happened with his last sock and now you are pushing for that he is going to get away with it again. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

And the last sock is already 100% sure with the exact same IP, and same behavior, why isn't he blocked yet? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not involved with content or behavioral disputes with either you or he, my role here is that of CU and SPI respondent, and I do not see indications of sockpuppetry in what you have brought. People are allowed to edit from IPs if they so choose, and without evidence of votestacking, 3RR violations, or ARBCOM restriction evasion, even if you are correct, the IP edits are irrelevant. If you believe he has behavioral issues that prevent the proper function of the wikipedia project, the proper venue for that is either is RfC or RfAR. The SPI board is specific to sockpuppetry issues. -- Avi (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, if the behavioral relationship is clear enough, preventative measures can be applied without checkusering the accounts. As I said, I'll leave that to other admins. -- Avi (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'm closing this for now. Per Avi's comments and my own misgivings about it, I don't think there's enough behavioral evidence to link the two. As the articles where the IP is editing are subject to ArbCom restrictions, reporting it to WP:AE may be the better option in the future. In the meantime, the IP hasn't edited in three days, so I consider it a bit stale anyway. — HelloAnnyong 17:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Open SPI cases
• SPI cases awaiting archive