Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lw1982/Archive
Lw1982
- Lw1982 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
20 June 2014[edit]
- Suspected sockpuppets
- IPchange (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.
- Editor interaction utility
I have only listed a few of the constantly changing IPs, all in the range 82.132... (which resolves to Telefonica O2 UK) and all exclusively editing the article Suzannah Lipscomb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
User:Lw1982 is likewise a single purpose editor at Suzannah Lipscomb who sometimes edits by mobile phone and has been blocked twice for edit warring, violations of the biographies of living persons policy, reversing OTRS actions, and editing logged out to avoid scrutiny [1]. See also this edit summary by the blocking admin (I assume based on WP:DUCK rather than checkuser). When the page's semi-protection expired, the first of the IPs listed above returned to the article to reinsert the information over which Lw1982 had been edit-warring to insert. Compare re subject's DoB: [2] and [3]. Ditto the second of these IPs. Compare re subject's parents: [4] and [5] and here where the third IP restores the source containing the information. Ditto the the fourth IP who restores the source containing the subject's alleged married name [6], another of Lw1982's issues which he tried to insert at least twice [7], [8].
In the last two days the IPs have been disrupting Talk:Suzannah Lipscomb. Note the exchanges between the IPs and other editors concerning their socking here where 82.132.237.157 claims that they have to edit logged out because they forgot their password. When it is pointed out that just 20 minutes earlier Lw1982 had logged in to remove a sockpuppetry warning from their talk page [9], the IPs return to delete the whole exchange, e.g. [10], [11]. The newly registered User:IPchange then arrives to remove the IP's signature from a comment [12], followed by removing the whole of an IP's comment with the summary "removing own comments anticipating over-reactive admins". This is then followed by a series of IPs edit-warring to remove their comments from the talk page e.g. [13], [14], [15], etc. etc. Then User:Lw1982 returns after a long absence on the talk page to remove one of the IP's comments [16]. – Voceditenore (talk) 07:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC) Updated by Voceditenore (talk) 08:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Note also User:IPchange's edit summary on another user's talk page: "...fine I have a user name until I change it again. Makes no difference I can find another network easily. Now you can explain your reasoning." Voceditenore (talk) 10:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Comments by other users[edit]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
- From my view, this seems like a straight case per DUCK, especially due to the (possible) self-admitted socking. For reference, the relevent range of IP's appears to be 82.132.192.0/18 for a range-block, which would affect up to 16384 users. --Mdann52talk to me! 09:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
- Account blocked, master 1 week. Page protection is preferred to rangeblocking where possible, and the page has already been protected Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)