Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Glkanter/Archive

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | Glkanter


Glkanter

09 July 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

IP User making comments on Talk:Monty Hall problem, with positions, arguments and incivility that appear to be the same positions, arguments and incivility that we saw from User:Glkanter before he was banned by arbcom. Guy Macon (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
05 September 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

This investigation was suggested in support of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_Glkanter Guy Macon (talk) 10:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

Well, they are all definitely Glkanter. I've blocked the first IP previously, have now blocked them all. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone with more technical knowledge suggest whether a rangeblock is possible. I've blocked the top one for 2 weeks as its been previously blocked, but I'm reluctant to block any of them for very long as they are not static. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •   Clerk note: I think the range on this one would be too wide. Also consider that the IPs in the archive are rather different from these, so it looks like they're hopping around. Relist if more IPs pop up, and we can reevaluate a rangeblock. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


07 April 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

As has happened before, an IP editor suddenly shows up using the same attacks against the same targets as Glkanter. This time he calls Glkanter's ban-earning personal attacks "informative, factual, relavent statements regarding his ArbCom hearing and outcomes." Recent post 1 Recent post 2 Older post showing previous sock making the same "page ownership" claim against the same editor ArbCom decision --Guy Macon (talk) 10:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC) Guy Macon (talk) 10:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another one: Diff. (Added 208.54.80.163 to list above) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
edit

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

What are the criteria for blocking IPs as sockpuppets. Is it just that they appear to support the POV of a banned editor? That criterion does not seem to be being consistently applied. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it is called "Sockpuppet investigations" rather than "Sockpuppet noticeboard" (as is the case with vandalism or COI / BLP violations) is because it is so difficult to tell actual sockpuppets from suspected sockpuppets. That's why I didn't say for sure the IPs were socks, but rather gave the reasons why I suspected them to be socks.
There are some tools that I use before posting my suspicions. For example, I used a geolocation tool on the new IPs and all previous reported IPs and verified that they were from the same general physical area. This cannot establish sockpuppetry, but it can rule it out - if one set of IPs is in Australia and the other is in France, they probably are not the same person. The Clerks who patrol this page can do the same thing, but they can also see the IP address of logged in users and the IP addresses of emails sent through Wikipedia or forwarded to Wikipedia - information that Wikipedia never reveals for privacy reasons. The clerk can also run a tool that analyses usage. If someone always logs in between 8AM and 5PM Monday through Friday pacific standard time, chances are that they are not the same person as someone who always logs in during lunch hour in Tokyo.
Some behaviors are red flags. I have seen cases where a user gets blocked for saying X and suddenly a new IP shows up saying "I already told you X." This is not as clear cut as that, but it is suspicious that a brand new IP who has never posted to Wikipedia shows a detailed knowledge of an arbcom case from a year ago, repeats the same "Rick Block is guilty of page ownership" claims that Glkanter and previous IPs suspected of being socks made, and then defended the behavior that got Glkanter banned. In the end, we have to trust the judgement of the clerk or patrolling admin who evaluates the report. In this case the IPs were blocked by Elen of the Roads, one of the arbitrators on the Monty Hall case. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To answer Martin, it must appear that the IP is the same chap, exactly the same as for a registered editor. If the IP appears to be editing on behalf of the blocked editor, but not be him, that's meatpuppetry. In this case, I got an earful of Glkanter during the Monty Hall case, and this sounds exactly like him. And as the public information on the IP doesn't pose a problem (if the edits were coming from another continent for example, one would want to make a few more enquiries), and the edits are very similar, I'm working on this being Glkanter. The only time this can cause a problem is if the 'sock' is what is sometimes termed a joe job, where one of our persistent vandals pretends to be another user just for the lulz. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So why then was this SPI not treated in the same way? Look particularly at the evidence given in the section 'In response to HelloAnnyong'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was treated in exactly the same way. In both cases, the admin/s handling the case had to evaluate whether or not there was sufficient grounds for believing that the two editors were the same person. The results were different because in the other case they were not so convinced. In this case, and possibly because I had to read all of his rants, I think this is the same person. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Have you read the carefully researched comments from Colin which show seven clear points of similarity between the two editors of an article far less prominent than this one but who come from the same city in Australia [The technical data indicates a   Possible connection between the two accounts. They're in the same city, but on different ISPs/computers Tnxman307|TN]. There is no response to any of these points from the involved admin who abruptly closed the case. Does something not seem a bit fishy to you? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
HelloAnnyong didn't abruptly close the 3rd case, he asked for more specific details, some diffs or similar viewpoints. He waited 12 days after asking for new evidence, when none was provided he closed the case.
Martin due to the history of the 3 SPI filed against me, I'm confused, whos sock do you think I am? ?oygul (talk) 12:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
Marking for close. TNXMan 14:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
16 April 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Glkanter still riding the same old hobbyhorse.[1] [2] [3] Guy Macon (talk) 09:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
Arbcom member Elen of the Roads certainly thinks so.
And this certainly meets the "if it walk like a duck, quacks like a duck..." test.
We could really use some help from SPI on this one. Glkanter is still posting his same stale old accusations as as an IP despite having been banned. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  IP blocked. --MuZemike 21:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

27 April 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Glkanter[4] now using Proxy Server.[5] Same accusations against same editor as the last dozen socks.

  Looks like a duck to me.

I don't see a good solution for this one. The sockpuppetry is low volume, there are other IPs making constructive edits to the page, and the proxy has had other users in the past who have made constructive edits. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Guy Macon (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

Blocked 72 hours. Whack-a-mole looks like the best solution for now. Elockid (Talk) 16:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

05 August 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


This IP has two previous sockpuppet blocks, content of edits is the same hobbyhorse Glkanter has been riding for years. Guy Macon (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Glkanter/Archive&oldid=1047195110"