Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/200.215.40.3

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:200.215.40.3

Suspected sockpuppeteer

200.215.40.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

~ Troy (talk) 23:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

All of the edits that I have encountered involved mostly deliberate attempts to remove a link from Holy Father (a disam. page) as well as "Pontiff"—without any explanation or discussion.

The puppetmaster did not appear to assume good faith and went ahead with negative edit summaries such as these.

It appears as though the user has ignored a notification by Andrew c to discuss his/her edits as they were used solely for one purpose.

The puppetmaster harrassed me with this edit in response to recieving several warnings from myself and others.

The IP was blocked for that edit. It turns out that he/she ignored the fact that there was a previous block and kept reverting edits on Holy Father until the page was protected.

The puppetmaster evidently doesn't use the same IP address anymore, but has likely renewed his/her IP in an effort to hide that identification (starting with "200..." or "201").

I believe that it is fair enough to assume that "189..." is another computer that the user makes use of, especially since the editing patterns are almost identical.

Almost all of the IPs are found to be from the same location—Brazil—according to Geolocate, with the exception of two IPs from the US (24.62.83.228 and 189.31.111.24).

The first actual case of an account was when I encountered an edit by Ausonia on Holy Father.

By then, I was so fed up that I kindly invited him/her to discuss the issue and said that I apologized if anyone felt insulted by my part.

189.30.67.61 rudely said that he/she "accepts" my apologies while making the same edit.

On Pontiff (with most of the above editors involved in deleting content), Italicus made the same edit and deleted the same thing as the earlier edits.

On July 21, 2008, 201.67.241.178, a new IP, noticed this report and ignored it. That IP also accused me of vandalism even as I was the one who explained that continuing such edits without discussing can be verified as such.

201.67.241.178 was blocked following those edits. A few minutes later, Italicus did the exact same thing until he/she was also blocked.

From careful observation up until this point, I believe that it is fair to say that these users are all related, with Italicus and being the most recent user and 201.67.241.178 being the most recent IP.

Comments

This edit was 7 months ago. 01:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by EdJohnston

I have semi-protected Pontiff one month and Holy Father two months. (There are too many IPs to block). I'd welcome any review of this action. Pontiff seems to enjoy some good-faith IP edits, and we will lose those in the interim. EdJohnston (talk) 02:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a decent way to handle this situation seeing as there are bound to be quite a few users effected if we block all those IPs. Tiptoety ^talk 03:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Ausonia (talk · contribs) blocked for a period of 24 hours for violating 3RR, Pontiff has been semi-protected for one month and Holy Father two months. Re-report if this does not solve the situation. Tiptoety ^talk 03:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]