Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/September88/Archive

September88

September88 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

14 March 2012

Suspected sockpuppets

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

User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

On a contested AfD the IP 39.47.36.30, which has made no other contributions [1] and thus is a SPA, cast its "vote" for the deletion of an article about the support of Pakistan's intelligence service ISI to terrorist groups.[2] The IP geolocates to the same place in Pakistan as September88's IP.[3][4][5] Shortly after the IP39 User:September88 also cast a "vote" in favor of deletion.[6] Credit for the research goes to DS. JCAla (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I think it is highly unlikely for a person to sock who actually corrected their own accidental log out when they could have done the same at that article too. And then to sock on another article just after such would be dumb. So I think your report is unfounded. To add to your knowledge, most IPs in Pakistan geolocate to Islamabad-Rawalpindi / Karachi / Lahore even when the users are in other cities because that's where the ISPs are based... and regardless of that, any one from Islamabad is not the same person as September88 just because of that comment. Do you know how many people subscribe to that ISP? (Probably including Nangparbat, though I never ran a check on his IPs). Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd has had monopoly in Pak even after internet age and its privatization. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a static IP from the same part of Islamabad-Rawalpindi. JCAla (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@JCAla he is right it is a PTCL IP. Let see what check user says about this. Btw you haven't requested checkuser, which may simplify the investigation. And I don't know whether I should add the other IP (200.98.197.34) who voted in a similar way here or file a separate report. --SMS ^Talk 20:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check user wont say anything about IPs, so no use. And the other IP is commenting for a keep, so that is clearly a different user (but a sock anyway), should be a separate SPI, but you should know the sock-master for it I think. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JCAla, do you know static IPs do not change? Why would it become 39 from 182 if it was a static (your research has clearly concluded wrong in that case)? If she had a static IP, she could not have changed it even on resetting her router, so if you say both IPs are static, both users are different no matter what. Regardless of which, this is not hard evidence of anything. Have a read btw [7]. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, to be neutral I was thinking of asking CU to somehow check everyone who voted there with these two IPs. --SMS ^Talk 20:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Na, against Wikipedia privacy policy. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @JCAla - is that all you have to go on here? A similarity in region? Because a) Checkuser is not for fishing and b) Checkusers will not provide IPs. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technical info, static IPs do change. FYI, Magog, that is the same neighborhood plus same editing behavior. And, please, leave anything even slightly related to me for another administrator to judge. We went to arbitration over this. JCAla (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I logged in today and see this going on. I simply made a mistake of accidental log off, and immediately corrected it as well. And feel its extremely uncivil to jump on baseless accusations like these. September88 (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Closing per comment from user, if you think there are other issues, bring them up at another venue. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, with regards to your checkuser closure: September88 wasn't referring to the IP which is a suspected sock (39.47.36.30) in her statement but to another incidence in which she accidentally logged out and her IP (182.177.119.162) displayed. September's accidental log out IP (182.177.119.162), besides showing the same editing behavior,[8][9] geolocates to the same neighborhood as the suspected sock IP and SPA (39.47.36.30) as DS pointed out in his research. I certainly wouldn't have acted on the research, if September88 had corrected everything. Everything the sock IP/SPA did, is still there. But if you still want to mark the case closed, fine by me. Just that you know what this was about. JCAla (talk) 06:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]