Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/193.33.148.205/Archive

193.33.148.205

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

03 October 2012

Suspected sockpuppets

37.235.54.49 (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.

IP adress used for nationalistic POV push in ARBMAC area. Sockmaster is either user:Bobrayner, user:ZjarriRrethues, or someone else, so we should use checkuser, but this is WP:DUCK anyway. IP just want to POV push, without any discussion or reason. History pages of The Weight of Chains and Boris Malagurski will say enough. IP was used in order to revert for the 4th or 5th time, without any relevant agreement, or consensus. WhiteWriter^speaks 21:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I'm surprised that WhiteWriter thinks this is a duck case, since the IP was merely joining in the reversion of POV-pushing on a couple of articles which have suffered severely from socking on the other side - cf Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bormalagurski/Archive. Anybody who reverts a Boris Malagurski sock deserves praise, rather than a retaliatory SPI.
By the way, I realise that checkusers shy away from associating a named editor with an IP, but I'm happy for a checkuser to be done in this case since I know the answer will be "no connection".
Anyway, the IP geolocates to a place thousands of km from where I live, and their previous edits are wholly unrelated to mine or ZjarriRrethues'. I look forward to WhiteWriter's explanation of how I'm obviously the same person as 193.33.148.205 despite the fact that I've never edited Third League of Prizren or, for that matter, commented on arms imports into Yugoslavia. bobrayner (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WhiteWriter - could you clarify? Opening an SPI against somebody simply because you disagree with them is a Bad Thing. Did you have a better reason? If so, I'd like to see the evidence. bobrayner (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's conclusive. Now a different IP has been added which does different edits (though this new IP seems to be the same person as 31.170.166.17) - who I reverted. I can't win - if a new editor helps me and others revert Bormalagurski socks, that makes them my sockpuppet; but if I revert an new editor and report them to a noticeboard, that makes them my sockpuppet too. I'd love to get a Checkuser result just so that WhiteWriter can hear the "no connection" from somebody independent. bobrayner (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't participated in the Malagurski-related debates and editing and I definitely don't live in Denmark. Btw I'm rather certain that this one of the IP users that have been active and editing whenever they perceive that there's Balkans POV-pushing (mostly Yugoslav topics). I'd be surprised if this wasn't the same user as at least some of the other Denmark-based IPs that have been editing/"monitoring" situations on-and-off for the past year or so. --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The IP was used in order to revert for the 4th or 5th time seems to be another accusation against bobrayner as he hasn't edited those articles since the day before yesterday.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Followup

WhiteWriter, you seem not to have replied to my previous query. Opening an SPI against somebody simply because you disagree with them is a Bad Thing. People get blocked for that kind of thing, and your block log is long enough already. Did you have a better reason for opening the SPI? If so, I'd like to see the evidence; the editors seem to be editing articles which I have no interest in; I've disagreed with some of their edits and reported them to a noticeboard; they seem to be pushing points which I have no interest in. Why have you accused me of being a sockpuppeteer? bobrayner (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because i have reasonable doubt, following your actions on those pages. And i still have. Also, Next time, dont just edit war over numerous articles, numerous times, over and over again with the repeated bland comments, but try to use talk page, as the rest of us do, so this doubt will not happen again. Please, dont act as victim here, you are just mentioned as possible, as you can see, investigation is under IP code, and not your nick. Still, it is by far obvious that IP is someones disruptive sock, so we should wait for admin, to help us in identify the sockmaster. --WhiteWriter^speaks 23:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what? I didn't edit war on that article. Obviously there's no evidence connecting me to the IPs, and no motive for me to sock; are you saying that you named me in an SPI because I disagreed with you on a different article? bobrayner (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Reread this page, and stop misleading. --WhiteWriter^speaks 10:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WW , to me it seems that you're reporting as a sockpuppet IPs involved in the same edit-wars as you and as a sockmaster users you disagree with. It's obvious that neither bobrayner nor I are related to any of them. Personally, I have never even edited most of the articles frequented by the IPs.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

The filer has given essentially no evidence that the IP addresses in question are operated by the several editors he names. As has already been suggested, making such a submission to this process is unacceptable: claims of sock-puppetry by established editors require clear evidence, and the failure to provide such evidence is of itself disruptive. As for the actual IP addresses, I checked one which yielded nothing of interested, and I note that the other has already been range-blocked as an anonymising proxy. I do not believe we could make a conclusive determination of sock-puppetry in this case, even if there was a modicum of behavioural evidence. I am marking this investigation for closure. AGK [•] 18:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]