Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sumbuddi/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Sumbuddi

Sumbuddi (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date February 12 2010, 21:13 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly)

Clearly bragging about block evasion; IPs have same editing pattern as original user. Would like to discover and block account this user is using to evade the block. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 21:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Uh, I think protocol dictates that you link to the offending reverts. 86.177.26.58 (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not really. Socking to avoid a block is the reason for this checkuser request, not the edit warring. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 21:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well you should use a different code letter then. Because that one is for 3RR. 86.177.26.58 (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: You are correct, code letter D requires evidence of 3rr violations using socks, of which there is none, so I've changed the code letter to E (Community ban/sanction evasion). Thanks, SpitfireTally-ho! 21:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, hit the wrong selection when I submitted the case with Twinkle. Thanks for changing it. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 21:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no problem, glad to be of help, SpitfireTally-ho! 21:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 21:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

{{decline}} frankly, it's an extremely obvious duck, the range is 86.176.0.0/14, which is too wide for a block, so I recommend handing out shortish blocks to the IPs as they come, and possibly semi-protecting some of the pages for short periods of time (such as Online bingo). No need for CU as the case is so obvious. Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 21:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem at online bingo was merely that a vandalised version was being restored to by editors not paying proper attention, and I reverted that: unfortunately the reverting users didn't seem to like the previous version either, and kept reverting to the vandalised version, without noticing what was going on. Somebody eventually spotted their mistake, no drama.
The IP range is actually a ***lot*** bigger than that, btw, see here [1]. 86.177.26.58 (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed on second thoughts, endorsing to run a check for any sleepers/socks, although my previous comments about the range and the protection still stand. SpitfireTally-ho! 21:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, was about to request that you do that. Thanks! Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 21:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The IP edits are actually coming from a different ISP than Sumbuddi used. There is definitely not an easy range to block. I think Spitfire's recommendations are the best option available. Dominic·t 23:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date February 19 2010,13:56 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Reported at WP:AIV by User:Editor 410
Reported by User:Kingoomieiii
Reported by User:B.hotep
Evidence submitted by King Öomie
[edit]

Same IP range as last report. This edit is quacking at me. [5]

I dont follow. The block log shows a block on smbuddi until 18th february for block evasion. This was replaced by an indef block becausse of the unverified claim on talk:sumbuddi that he had another account, with the stated block reason of ensuring he used that account, and not sumbuddi. the block is not from editing wikipedia, but from using that specific account. So if that IP editing sumbuddis user page is sumbuddi, so what, exactly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.53 (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims. Note that User:Sumbuddi has added the following response at User talk:Sumbuddi: -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Statement re SPI[reply]

I was blocked for 24 hours on 10th February for 3RR violation. This related to a 3-way dispute regarding appropriate links on various online gambling page. These pages tend to attract spammers, and several users were of the opinion that the solution to that was to include as a single 'External Link' a link to the relevant ODP category. My position was that where the ODP categories consisted primarily of links to banner farms, there should be no link at all. The position of a third party, at IP 68.191.163.74, was that those banner farm ODP categories should instead be replaced with Yahoo or 'Best of the Web' banner farm categories.

One of these links inserted by 68.191.163.74 was to [6], a link which is not germane to the page it was added to online bingo. He acknowledged he had made a mistake in adding that link; however at the time I was blocked, that link was the one that was in place.

I was reported by User:Enigmaman for reverting the off-topic Yahoo link while the 24 hour 3RR block was in place.[7] This resulted in a 1 week block for block evasion, to expire on 18th February (the Yahoo link was eventually removed by another user, and now the page is stable).

On 17th February I was blocked indefinitely. I received no explanation for why this was, and feeling that this was unfair, I had had enough, and decided to post a goodbye note. [8].

I had no desire to request an unblock, because I felt that my block was arbitrary and unfair, and had no further desire to participate in a project that functions in such a manner. An utterly pointless edit war ensued over whether my User page should reflect my goodbye note, or instead include a SP tag that is contrary to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Administrators_instructions#Blocking_and_tagging. An SPI was started over this [9] edit to my user page (the edit was made after the 1 week block expired).

Subsequently it has emerged that the block was made as a result of a number of false claims made on WP:AIV by User:Editor 410, who appears most likely to be a sockpuppet of User:Wiki libs, a user I got indefinitely blocked last year. These claims were that User:41.219.126.1, an IP in Namibia, whose only edits were to add spam links to casino websites both registered to the same South African firm, User:68.191.163.74, the American IP I mention above as 'the third party' in the dispute on the online gambling pages, and User:Wickland, the logged-in ID of 68.191.163.74, were all my sockpuppets.

The claims were all made on AIV despite none of the users being involved in any vandalism.

I have since found that Wickland aka 68.191.163.74, was deemed the new 'master' (of me), and was given a 1 week block, while I was blocked permanently as Wickland's puppet. Obviously this is total nonsense, but I now have an explanation for the indefinite block.

As I have now discovered the reason for my block - false claims that were made that I was simultaneously three different people on three different continents - I have realised that the block was not an arbitrary exercise of administrative power, but was in fact based on a malicious report by a newly registered sockpuppet.

As such I have renewed faith in the ability of the project to allow editors to make good faith contributions, the source of the trouble (Editor 410) having been identified, I have redacted my prior intention, which was to leave as quietly as possible (not bothering with the unblock drama) and make no further edits, and I would ask that I be unblocked and this process closed forthwith, so that we can all get on with more useful pursuits. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sumbuddi (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see several further statements by Sumbuddi on his talk page, User talk:Sumbuddi#Statement re SPI. Amalthea 00:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

Additional sock/IP user 212.183.140.53 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) has taken up the charge and doing exact same type of edit warring as seen in example King Oomie submitted. Nefariousski (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sumbuddi was blocked because User:Daniel Case concluded, without any checkuser, SPI, or links to any diffs showing related edits, that User:Wickland was the same person as User:Sumbuddi, and blocked Wickland indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Sumbuddi.

Following Wickland's unblock request, assuming that Daniel Case's cliam was accurate, User:Beeblebrox said he would swap the block on Wickland for a permanent one on Sumbuddi, the supposed alternate account: [10], see block logs here:

21:10, 17 February 2010 Beeblebrox (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Wickland (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 week (account creation blocked) ‎ (blocked other account indef, making this the standard one week first timer sock block)

21:08, 17 February 2010 Beeblebrox (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Sumbuddi (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) ‎ (user has indicated they will not be using this account and have a new one, this will "keep them honest")

However, as it is abundantly clear that Wickland and Sumbuddi are completely unrelated, the permanent block on Sumbuddi is ungrounded, and there should be no 'block evasion' to be considered, as no block should be in place. 86.179.106.212 (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's all well and good. But see, you are Sumbuddi. The evasion started during another block, and continues now. "I shouldn't be punished for sneaking contraband into my prison cell! I should have been exonerated from this sentence already!" --King Öomie 02:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you started this SPI alleging a violation of an incorrect block that was imposed due to the manifestly incorrect claim that Wickland=Sumbuddi. Your claim is that 'the evasion started during another block', your link doesn't show that, your link only shows an attempt to edit Sumbuddi's user page, made after any valid blocks should have expired.
Your 'evidence' doesn't amount to anything. 86.179.106.212 (talk) 03:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More links, then. [11][12]. You editing just now; Sumbuddi's block log. You are editing while your account is blocked, which is called "block evasion". Evading a block you feel is improper isn't different. Especially when you use it to piss on the blocking admin. --King Öomie 03:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I think you actually posted a message on my talk page accusing me of sockpuppetry, inviting me to respond on the evidence page. I take it that was just an elaborate ruse: 'Hey you, you're accused of sockpuppeting by violating a ban that was made erroneously' 'No, that's rubbish' 'Ha, ha. I caught you now.'
Let me offer you the 'Barnstar of Entrapment' for services to wasting everybody's time.
Further, I don't think politely [13] explaining that someone blocked two separate people qualifies as 'pissing on'.
Anyway, I guess you can put this on your Request for admin, I'm sure those voting will be impressed at your good judgement in reporting an IP for making a single edit to a user page, and then saying that responding to your resulting SPI is a further outrageous transgression. Bravo. 86.179.106.212 (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I posted that specific edit to point out that you continue to evade your block. Perhaps this is the more prudent link. Your SPI was started before this thread was created. I'm no psychic, but nice try. --King Öomie 04:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? The edits, aside from the first, to [[User:Sumbuddi], seem to all be a direct consequence of you starting this big waste of everybody's time investigation to me.
And as the comment at the top of the page says, even if, as you seem so determined to do, you ignore the fact that the block was incorrect, the block is very clearly on 'Sumbuddi' editing using the account 'Sumbuddi': "block is not from editing wikipedia, but from using that specific account. So if that IP editing sumbuddis user page is sumbuddi, so what, exactly?" 86.179.106.212 (talk) 05:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the edit you added from your phone? Your first point is incorrect. Even hypothetically granted that Wickland isn't Sumbuddi, Sumbuddi is blocked. It doesn't make any sense to block someone and say "Well you can still log out and do whatever the hell you want". If Sumbuddi is indeffed so that the sock/new master Wickland can live on, Wickland is currently blocked, edit warring over his sock's public appearance. You're referring to a scenario in which a puppeteer's socks are blocked but the master is more-or-less left alone? Yeah, that not this. Your edits from that IP to various users and admins are for the most part not concerning this page. --King Öomie 05:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are two problems with that. Firstly, it is quite clear from the block at Wickland that the admin intended only a temporary block on the supposed Sumbuddi/Wickland user. 'I've indefinitely blocked User:Sumbuddi and re-blocked you with n expiry time of one week, flip-flopping the two blocks' and that while 'User:Sumbuddi' would remain blocked indefinitely, the supposed Sumbuddi/Wickland user would be as free as anybody else to edit Wikipedia (including doing this), upon the expiry of that one week block.
The second problem is that Wickland and Sumbuddi are clearly not the same person, and nobody bothered to tell Sumbuddi that he was actually blocked from Wikipedia entirely until 24 February 2010 21:10. And you can't reasonably attack somebody for not following a block they were not told existed, and was made due to a fundamental error as to identity. 86.180.171.151 (talk) 12:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno... As an impartial observer, I think Sumbuddi has a valid point (assuming User:Sumbuddi is truly not User:Wickland) -- has anyone done a CheckUser on the two? Yes, I know 2 wrongs don't make a right, and he could probably have handled the "surprise" block by User:Daniel Case and escalation by User:Beeblebrox better than by saying he was going to create another account, but, still from the outside, it looks like a misunderstanding that's gotten out of hand. He's got a pretty decent list of contributions and up until a week ago had a couple of Barnstars on his User:Talk page [14] -- check it out. The Edit warring and then Sock Puppet charge seem out of character. From here it looks like Daniel Case screwed up, then Beeblebrox (showing compassion to Wickland), compounded things and then Sumbuddi overreacted. If it were up to me, I'd give the guy a warning and remove the block. Just my 2 cents... Mojoworker (talk) 10:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah impartial is probably a good thing to mention here.
The reporter (Kingoomieiii) wasn't [15] very happy [16] about this investigation by Sumbuddi:
[17]
which resulted in his friend [18] getting indef blocked for maintaining multiple complex socks each with fake back stories for fake consensus building and edit warring (ban since reversed)
and this looks to attempting this as some sort of 'follow-up'. 86.180.171.151 (talk) 12:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: in following your link to 86.179.106.212 Contributions all he's been doing is defending himself here and on the User:talk pages of the parties involved -- although some of the edits by Sumbuddi on his own talk page are somewhat dicey, it's not like he's vandalizing (or even editing) articles or other people's User pages... Mojoworker (talk) 10:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've been good and slagged out here, let me explain that I was responding to an AIV on the anon as an obvious sock of Sumbuddi (by Editor 410, who seems to have a serious interest in this user yet has not been part of this SPI). I checked it against Sumbuddi, who by that time had been blocked as a sockmaster, and saw topically similar edit warring, so I blocked.

A little while later Wickland left this message on my talk page, protesting the block to the IP, and making it intuitive that all three accounts were related. Thus I blocked Wickland indef.

Since we now have his own statements here and elsewhere that those accounts and the IP are one and the same, I would ask that anyone saying the original block was mistaken please withdraw such statements and apologize. As for the outcome, if he wants to edit as Wickland once the block expires I have no problem with that as long as he follows policy and discloses the old account. Daniel Case (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You blocked User:Wickland claiming that he was someone he clearly is not, namely User:Sumbuddi. The message that he left on your talk page protesting that is a natural reaction.
Uh, he left that message before I blocked him, complaining about the block of the IP, making your "natural reaction" argument moot. Since the IP had been linked to Sumbuddi without dispute before then, and since no one was aware of the connection until that message which implictly but indisputably admitted he and the IP user were the same, I feel the logic linking all three accounts is sound on the face of what I knew at the time. And other than your persistent arguments to the contrary (which aren't as solid as you insist they are), I haven't seen any real evidence to the contrary. Daniel Case (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's demonstrably false. You blocked his IP
'14:38, 15 February 2010 Daniel Case (talk | contribs) blocked 68.191.163.74 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks ‎ (Block evasion: sock of User:Sumbuddi) '
claiming that he was a sock of Sumbuddi, based on a false report by Editor 410 at AIV.
It is not correct to say 'the IP had been linked to Sumbuddi without dispute before then'. The ONLY person who linked the IP to Sunbuddi is Editor 410, who is clearly an experienced Wikipedia user yet registered only 8 days ago. That was the ONLY way the IP was 'linked to Sumbuddi', by a user who inarguably has an axe to grind, at best.
When I say "without dispute", what I mean was that it had been several days without an unblock request challenging the sockpuppetry charge being posted. Usually IP users who feel they have been wrongly blocked as socks post their unblock requests within a few hours of the block (as, of course, do sockmasters trying to get away with it).
Sumbuddi's first edit post-block was to say he was using another account. When
  • I block an IP as a sock of User A,
  • User B appears on my talk page protesting the block, and ...
  • User A says on his talk page that he's taken up another account without disclosing what account that is, and ...
  • User A's userpage history shows a pattern of using IPs to revert the addition of the sockmaster tag, and ...
  • User B, who had protested the block on the IP in the first place, created the account last summer but only started using it again recently, then ...
  • I don't see how anyone could fault anybody for a conclusion that all three accounts were controlled by the same editor. Daniel Case (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'I block an IP as a sock of User A'. In other words you blocked an IP. You definitely blocked someone. Who that person is, we would need some other evidence to show. You could say 'I blocked an IP as a sock of Santa Claus', it doesn't prove that IP Santa Claus without other evidence.
'User B appears on my talk page protesting the block'. Ok, so we know that the IP is User B. You blocked an IP, and someone complained. But that doesn't show that User B/IP is User A.
'*User A says on his talk page that he's taken up another account without disclosing what account that is, and ...' Ok, so this claim may be true or false. Let's say it's true. What sort of evidence would we want to say that some User X is actually User A in violation of a ban? Either checkuser evidence or behavioural evidence. On the first, a checkuser was done, nothing was found [19]. On the second point, where's your behavioural evidence that User B is User A. If you compare the edits made by User B with User A, they are in disagreement with each other. User A wants to remove the external links to ODP entirely, while User B wants to replace them with links to Yahoo. It's also pretty clear that User B has little Wikipedia experience, whereas User A does not.
'*User A's userpage history shows a pattern of using IPs to revert the addition of the sockmaster tag, and ...' Which is something you would do if someone falsely accused you of doing something, I don't see your point here. It doesn't demonstrate that User A is User B, the only thing it suggests is that User A is unhappy about being described as a sockmaster.
'*User B, who had protested the block on the IP in the first place, created the account last summer but only started using it again recently, then ...' It's pretty easy to see who/what User B is. He created an account on 13th July 2009, used it a few times and then lost interest. [20] Also you can see that he probably has a static IP, because there's also an edit around the same time to the same obscure article from[21] Anyway, Wickland makes his few minor edits and loses interest. He probably never logs into that account again - as he as no great knowledge or involvement in Wikipedia he has no need to.
A few months later he (as the IP) makes an edit to 'John D. Odegard School of Aerospace Sciences ' and then one to 'Pat Robertson controversies'. Although he has registered an account, there would be no particular incentive reason for such an occasional editor to remember to log back into it, as an IP can still make edits just fine. He carries on, until, inexplicably, he is blocked with settings 'anon-only', and a big red message on his talk page claiming he is a sockpuppet of some person thousands of miles away. As it's clear that he has a static IP (given that the IP used last July is the same one he is using now), he is blocked from anonymous editing, cannot create a new account, so he has no alternative but to use the account he created last July. It's no surprise that he starts using it again - prior to being blocked from editing anonymously he had no reason to use it, while after being blocked from editing anonymously he had no choice but to use it.
All quite confusing/alarming for such an irregular user, and he goes off on a tirade saying that he 'DEMANDS' an explanation. When he does that, he gets his logged in account blocked as well. All very tedious, but none of this in any way demonstrates any connection between User A and User B though, just that User B is the same IP that we could see he was by simply looking at the edit logs from last July [22]
So yeah, I'd definitely fault your conclusion. 86.180.169.62 (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's an old lawyer's joke about a lawyer who's paid someone to kill his wife if the hit man can catch her and her lover in the act. One night he finds out his wife is meeting her lover at a hotel. He gets the hit man a room across the street where he can watch through the window.

The hit man comes back and says he couldn't do it that night. "Why" asks the lawyer. "Well, I watched them meet each other in the room, and draw the curtains and I could see their shadows embrace." "Good, good", says the lawyer. "Then what?". "Then they turned the light out". The lawyer pauses for a while and says, "That damn reasonable doubt".

There's a difference between reasonable doubt and possible doubt, and I see plenty of possible doubt from you, some of which might in combination with other circumstances, have produced reasonable doubt. But I don't see any reasonable doubt. Daniel Case (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great story, but it doesn't actually contribute to showing a link between two users.
There has to be some evidence that someone is sockpuppeting, and some reason for someone to do that. For instance, I posted below my belief that User:Wiki libs is sockpuppeting as User:Editor 410. The evidence is that Editor 410 is pursuing a vendetta, is a new user yet clearly highly experienced, and has motivation because he got indef-blocked previously. Great.
Following that principle, what is your evidence and justification that [[User:Wickland]68.191.163.74 = Sumbuddi. Obviously the mere claim by an editor with a vendetta to pursue (Editor 410) doesn't amount to evidence.
The only thing I can think of is block evasion, given this 22:39, 11 February 2010 Ioeth (talk | contribs) blocked Sumbuddi (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Block evasion: see Special:Contributions/86.178.11.57)
But 68.191.163.74/Wickland only makes one edit after that time [23], on 13th February, asking Ioeth why he can't replace Dmoz links with Yahoo.
Given that Sumbuddi actually removed Yahoo links several times over: [24] [25] [26] [27] it is, beyond a joke, to suggest that Sumbuddi is evading his block, in order to say to Ioeth that the links he'd removed are actually really good.
The next stage is Editor 410 abusing AIV, two days later, to falsely claim that the message left on Ioeth was (a) WP:vandalism, (b) recent, (c) in progress, and (d) that Sumbuddi = 68.191.163.74.
So unless you've got a better explanation than 'Sumbuddi sockpuppets as 68.191.163.74 in order to avoid his block so that he can post one message on a user talk page that directly contradicts his previous behaviour', I suggest you need to reconsider that 'reasonable doubt'.86.180.169.62 (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, let me brief you on the life of an admin who reviews AIV reports.

  • There is a premium on handling these quickly if the vandalism is ongoing.
  • Investigating AIVs largely consists of reviewing the reportee's edit history, particularly the most recent edits, to verify that it meets the reporting criteria.
  • If it does, we block. If not, we leave a message under the report explaining what was wrong with it, and eventually another reviewer removes it.

So you see that it is not a place for in-depth investigation. If a report suggests this, we refer it to AN/I or whatever other venue is appropriate.

Now, sometimes we get reports of the "Obvious sock of X" variety, as this was. When one comes through, I try to find out who the purported sockmaster is, and familiarize myself with his edit history, as that information is often lacking in the AIV. In this case I did so, and I saw Sumbuddi had already been blocked for a couple of days. That usuually means any SPI has been completed. I saw topical similarities in the two accounts, plus a lot of reversions by the IP. I concluded I had grounds for a two-week block of the IP.

I did this because I trusted Ioeth, based on my previous experiences with him, to have made a proper call on the SPI and the block. I did this because I assumed the original AIV report had been made in good faith as well.

At that time we had no reason to question Editor 410's motives. But even assuming what hasn't been proven, that he is a sock of Wiki Libs out for payback on Sumbuddi, I still have one question: why does he target that IP for his very first payback AIV? There are millions of IPs out there; he picked that one. Does he know something we don't? He had to know, having been the subject of such an investigation himself, that someone would at least review the edits and see the similarity with Sumbuddi's recent edit history, that any old random IP wouldn't do. Indeed, we can assume that he would have taken special care with the accounts he reported as he would want his payback to hit its target without any collateral damage.

Bad faith or not, if there are legitimate reasons to investigate and take action, we do it regardless of the reporter.

Indeed, for this system to work as you would seem to imagine it should, I should have not assumed any good faith and checked out Ioeth's history, as well as Editor 410's (and at that point, in any event, I wouldn't have found anything) before doing anything. That's not how we're supposed to do things. Daniel Case (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be misinterpreting me here. I am not trying to turn this into a criticism of your actions. Editor 410 made a false claim, good faith was assumed, and blocks handed out. No malpractice there, normally that would work out fine, nothing more would be heard of it. However in this case the original report was false, and there should be a responsibility to investigate and undo the ensuing actions.i
As to why that IP was chosen, it's pretty obvious that Editor 410 is watching Special:Contributions/Sumbuddi.
If you look back through that and at the original sock report for Wiki libs you will see that he started an edit war using multiple anonymous IPs at Juice. Here's one of those reverts [28]. The intention was presumably to cause a 3RR block. Unfortunately for him, the behaviour smelled funny, the IPs were checked, dozens of socks came out, and he was indef blocked for sockpuppetry.
Anyway, fast forward to February, he's unblocked on 4th February, and is watching Special:Contributions/Sumbuddi. He sees this thread, which relates to him [29], and sees an edit war at Online casino and Online bingo involving Sumbuddi. Within hours, on 8th February, he creates a new sockpuppet 'Editor 410'. Whether he has a specific immediate purpose in mind, or whether like his previous socks, he grows them over time is unclear.
On 10th February the dispute is still ongoing, and he logs in from his Blackberry to try and stir the pot, re-adding a useless link at Online bingo that Wickland/68.191.163.74 had previously added, but later acknowledged was erroneous and entirely off-topic:
[30]
After he gets the desired result, a revert by Sumbuddi, he does it again (these are both Blackberry IPs):
[31]
He tries the same trick at Casino again using his Blackberry to avoid detection:
[32]
Unfortunately for him, the fact that someone has gone to the considerable trouble of logging on to Wikipedia from a Blackberry to make logically inconsistent edits with the only purpose of reverting one user is a giveaway as to the agenda behind the edits, and just like the edits at Juice last year, warring for the sake of it, there's a funny smell about these edits - they are not the actions of a rational person trying to push his POV, but deliberate warring.
Anyway, the last revert by the Blackberry is at 15:00, and at 15:28 a block ensues:
"15:28, 10 February 2010 Ioeth (talk | contribs) blocked Sumbuddi (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring or violation of the three-revert rule: at Casino)"
with the nonsense Blackberry version of 15:00 still there.
The nonsense edit made by (Wiki libs/Blackberry user) is reverted by 86.178.11.57, along with this comment [33], which reveals that the Blackberry user's tactics have been noticed. This results in SPI/Sumbuddi for block evasion, and the result is this:
22:39, 11 February 2010 Ioeth (talk | contribs) blocked Sumbuddi (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Block evasion: see Special:Contributions/86.178.11.57)
Now there are two conditions in place:
  • the sockpuppeting by the Blackberry has been identified, and specifically described as having been committed by Wiki libs, who as a freshly unblocked indef-blocked-sockmaster, is on thin ice as it is, so he needs to act - see [34]
  • Sumbuddi has been tainted with the tag 'sockpuppeteer', and any allegations against him will stick easily. This tactic was repeatedly used by Wiki libs in the past - he would tag IPs and new users disagreeing with his strict views about the correct genre for metal bands/albums (and related subjects) as sockpuppets of some blocked user (while maintaing multiple sockpuppets himself), thereby getting them blocked.
Given that he had been actively sockpuppeting with his Blackberry, he would have noticed the anon IP 68.191.163.74 (Wickland) two revisions before his already, so the target wouldn't have been in the least bit hard for him to find. And when the 68.191.163.74 user made an edit while the block on Sumbuddi for block evasion using an IP was in force, he could plausibly claim that 68.191.163.74 was actually a sockpuppet of the evil sockmaster.
That didn't go entirely according to plan, User:Materialscientist correctly observing [35] 'How comes this sock removes yahoo links and another sock (86.178.11.57) adds them? ' [i.e. they are clearly not the same person at all]
Editor 410 doesn't have an answer for that, so he just replies 'Insulting an administrator' [36], with a link to Ioeth's talk page, which, since he was the admin handling the three-way edit war between Wickland/Sumbuddi/others, and had warned Wickland for insisting on Yahoo links as well as blocked Sumbuddi for insisting on no links, consisted of a thread about Sumbuddi, with a thread from Wickland's IP immediately below that. The fact of this juxtaposition works well enough, and you block that IP, and drama ensues.86.176.71.77 (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the user at 68.191.163.74 couldn't edit, he logged into his old account Wickland, dormant since 14 July 2009, and left an angry message, 14 hours after your block of his IP, asking for an explanation for the ridiculous claim that 68.191.163.74 = Sumbuddi.
And, him having left an angry and incoherent message accusing both me and Ioeth of malfeasance, I have further support for a suspicion I've caught a sockmaster. Daniel Case (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've got further suspicion that you've pissed somebody off, yes. But you could just block people at random, as a social experiment, see how they respond if you wanted to study that.
If the guy was actually guilty of something it would be far more logical to just keep quiet. But if you are totally innocent well yeah, it's not surprising that he's pissed off.86.180.169.62 (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But why would Wickland care about the IP being blocked if he could clearly still edit? The standard block let registered autoconfirmed users edit, and Wickland would have been one. I would never considered Wickland a sock of anyone, wouldn't even have known his name, if he hadn't protested the block of the IP. Which brings up the question of why he would have protested the block of the IP, which shouldn't have affected his editing at all? Maybe he had other purposes in mind for the IP? I just can't see a reason a legitimate user cognizant of policy regarding accounts with intact editing privileges would care about the block of his/her IP.

No one would have suspected the IP and Wickland were related until he brought up the connection himself. If he wanted to get the IP unblocked, he could have used the unblock template as {{sspblock}}, which I put on the IP's talk page, explicitly instructs users wishing for an unblock to do. If he didn't want the reputation of the Wickland account to be cast in doubt, why complain to the blocking admin with the registered account?

I grant that these may be the actions of an inexperienced user, but in my view anyone around here long enough to make sophisticated arguments about what is and isn't permitted under WP:EL is or should be sophisticated enough with policy to understand how things like that will be perceived, particularly if they're not claiming that the IP edits were of the accidental logout variety. Daniel Case (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously telling me, that if you accessed Wikipedia and found 'You have new messages' with a false claim on your talk page that you were somebody else that you would just say 'I don't care'? Really?
Well, if I found that my IP was blocked as someone else's sock, I know better (and knew better even a long time ago) that the worst way to deal with it is to post an angry message on the blocking admin's talk page from my own registered account. Daniel Case (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you'd do, as an experienced user is all very well, but the message you left clearly states:
If you are a registered user and you're seeing this message, then please post unblock|reason for unblock here on your talk page, with a note referencing this message. Please be sure to include this IP address in your note.
So if you would just ignore the instructions that's great for you, but it doesn't mean you've a right to expect someone else to do the same.86.180.169.62 (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By those instructions, he should have posted it on User talk:Wickland. Daniel Case (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a natural assumption that it's more expedient to leave messages on others talk pages, because they will definitely read them there. If you leave it on your own talk page, who knows? Especially if you want to talk directly to the blocking admin, not to whomever happens to be in charge. 86.176.71.77 (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So we should allow a user to ignore an explicitly stated instruction because of his natural assumption? The point of posting unblock requests is to allow an independent review of the block. Daniel Case (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And it clearly did affect his editing, because he'd found that editing as an anonymous user worked perfectly well for him, and now suddenly he can't do it any more because of some false claim that he's somebody else.
That comes with the territory if you choose to edit anonymously. As does the presumption that, if you've been around for a while, you know how the system works. A brand-new user choosing to edit anonymously might get a break here. Not one who's been editing that way for a while. Daniel Case (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And in any case, it's not clear from that message that it's ok for the user to edit as his logged-in identity. How can you expect him to know that? As far as he's concerned he's been blocked as some evil doppelganger.
You presume that I knew the connection between the IP and the registered account. I would imagine that if he had chosen to edit consistently as the IP rather than using his registered account, he'd assume that it was alright to do so.

Also, consider the substance of the message itself. It's angry, it's impolite, it doesn't assume good faith. If he had said "Excuse me, Mr. Case, it is possible you may be mistaken, I understand how you might think I'm a sock, but I'm not and here's why", in all likelihood we wouldn't be here. Daniel Case (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All good points but this is 'WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Sumbuddi'. Not 'WP:Rudeness/Wickland'. If Wickland is rude, that shouldn't besmirch Sumbuddi, an entirely different person. 86.180.169.62 (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilawyering. To me, demeanor counts. I think offline as well as on, reasonable people know you do not approach authority figures with power over your freedom like that. We may think the police officer has erred in pulling us over. That does not mean that our first move when he walks up to the window is to call him a "*&%&ing pig", for s/he will then be looking for excuses to search the vehicle for the drugs or weapons he may then be expecting to find (and if we have any genuine mitigating circumstances we'd like to plead, forget it). Previously I have gotten angry notes from people I've blocked as sockpuppets. And they were sockpuppets.

Which leads to another point if you want to wikilawyer. Block evasion is a strict liability thing. It does not matter if you were using another IP or a registered account; you go through proper channels and do not protest the block on the blocking admin's talk page. Policy does not allow for this. He could have emailed me if he wanted a personal discussion; I take those.

If you would accuse me of mishandling the situation with a lot of post hoc ergo prompter hoc arguments, stipulate then that Wickland/the IP mishandled the situation by being incivil, failing to AGF and not following proper procedure as spelled out in the block notice. — Daniel Case (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not accusing you of mishandling anything, you're not on trial here, you made an error in good faith. No big deal, now we fix the problem.

I agree that Wickland was rude, and did not need to respond in that fashion. Further, I can see that at the time when this investigation was conducted, you had a good faith belief that 68.whatever = Sumbuddi, based on a report by a user you had no reason to doubt, and when you saw a further account, Wickland, appear in defence of that user, accused of sockpuppeting, coupled with a rude response, you would have felt your good faith belief even more justified.

We are in agreement that you acted on the basis of reasonable belief at that time.

This is however a sockpuppet investigation based on the available evidence NOW not a retrospective review of the wisdom of your actions, so let's please move on.86.176.71.77 (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the tl:sspblock template states "If you are a registered user and you're seeing this message, then please post unblock|reason for unblock here on your talk page, with a note referencing this message. Please be sure to include this IP address in your note." Which in other words would be a message on Wickland's talk page saying that his IP 68.191.163.74 was blocked.
There's nowhere it says you can simply request the IP to be unblocked as IP - it EXPLICITLY states that he should 'cast the reputation of Wickland into doubt' (the IP, having made about six edits, doesn't have any kind of reputation to uphold, so that's hardly an issue) by logging in as Wickland asking for the IP to be unblocked.
No, it doesn't explicitly say that, nor should it ever have. Yet many users see that and post their unblock requests below all the same.
The edit to WP:EL is hardly a sign of a sophisticated user - User:2005 repeatedly said that the issue should be discussed there, and User:2005 created the discussion, describing the user in rather negative terms 'An IP User has an anti Dmoz fetish, and is wholesale replacing Dmoz links with paid-for-listing Yahoo directory ones, despite the obvious inferiority of the Yahoo links' Responding to an existing discussion in which you are being attacked does not really make you sophisticated in any sense. 86.180.169.62 (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Editing on a policy talk page suggests a comfort and sophistication in use of Wikipedia that supports a presumption, combined with a few months' tenure on the site, that one is familiar with its basic policies. Daniel Case (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok.
But his actions are consistent with him being 68.191.163.74 and Wickland, a user with a few dozen edits over a few months. They are not in any way consistent with him being Sumbuddi. 17:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
This proves what exactly?
That 68.191.163.74 was blocked, and the user there was no longer able to edit, well duh, you just blocked it
That 68.191.163.74 = Wickland
It doesn't even begin to suggest that 68.191.163.74 = Sumbuddi.
By that logic, someone could do a checkuser on you, falsely block your IP as a sockpuppet of Jimbo Wales, and then when you login as Daniel Case to complain, the blocking admin could claim that is 'proof' that Daniel Case = Jimbo Wales. 86.180.171.151 (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, your post here is really not that clear about who you are claiming is who, and what the evidence is to show that.
Wickland states 'In fact, my "username" when I am logged out is User:68.191.163.74.' A quick whois would show that that IP is a US IP, as against the UK IPs involved here.
I think we all know that intercontinental geographical separation does not, alone, disprove claims of sockpuppetry.
NOBODY is arguing that 68.191.163.74 is not Wickland.
What you need to do is post just one diff, one post, or whatever that suggests either that 68.191.63.74 is Sumbuddi or that Wickland is Sumbuddi.
Whatever the connection, Wickland seems to have been using the IP to edit, and protested the IP block at my talk page. No one would have been aware of that connection had he remained silent and let the IP block run out. Daniel Case (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Wickland = 68.191.163.74. We're all happy with that. Now you need to provide evidence either that Wickland = Sumbuddi, or that Sumbuddi = 68.191.163.74. You haven't, the only evidence is the malicious user Editor 410.
I have posted above my reasons for drawing that conclusion based on convincing circumstantial evidence. Daniel Case (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Despite my very clear statement on your talk page, providing a whole heap of evidence that Sumbuddi has entirely dissimilar edits to Wickland/68.191.163.74, you haven't responded directly to that, and have only left us with the hopelessly vague "Since we now have his [whose?] own statements here [which statements?] and elsewhere [where?] that those accounts [which accounts? specify them.] and the IP [which IP?] are one and the same"
When I wrote that I had thought that Sumbuddi had admitted the relationship. I have since spelled out the chain of circumstances that led to make what I believe is a more than reasonable inference that all three accounts are controlled by the same individual. These could be a coincidence, but I want to hear better explanations than I have been. Daniel Case (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, thanks for pointing out User:Editor 410. Looks like all this trouble stems from him making the false claim that 68.191.163.74 = Sumbuddi, and abusing AIV to get someone blocked when that user hadn't even edited for several days
It is very plain that Editor 410, who registered only 12 days ago, is a sockpuppet of somebody else.
And you accuse me of jumping to conclusions on minimal evidence? This is rich ... Daniel Case (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your 'evidence' is limited to a claim by an axe-grinding editor, while there is strong evidence to the contrary, as posted ony our talk page. OTOH, a quick look at Editor 410's edits shows him to be using special tools (Twinkle), to specialise in tidying up Wikilinks/wikisyntax, haunting AIV (and getting into trouble with the real administrators for presuming to remove reports). That should be all the evidence you need that this person is an experienced Wikipedia user. That would be all very well if he wasn't pursuing a vendetta, even as we speak [37], reporting my IP for commenting on this page, making comments such as 'Get Sumbuddi banned for good' on AIV. So yep, plenty of evidence. 86.180.171.151 (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend a checkuser on Editor 410 to hopefully find out who it is and have him blocked.
From past behaviour [38] User:Wiki libs would be the most likely candidate, but I guess [39] this report of User:Enigmaman (for actions he took in support of User:Wiki libs) could also have motivation. But anyway, definite bad faith sockpuppet. 86.180.171.151 (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I grant you may have something there (since the account's subsequent behavior looks a little odd), but I think this would be better off in a separate SPI. Daniel Case (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, could you create it? I anticipate unnecessary drama if I do so. Should be another post at [40]
I would also suggest in an interim block on Editor 410 from editing AIV pending the conclusion of that process. 86.180.171.151 (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I note, however, that Editor 410 is doing a lot more than just dubious AIV reports. Some are legit and some are legitimate edits outside of AIV. You can't quite call it an SPA. Again, start a separate SPI. Daniel Case (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case, I didn't mean to offend you when I said you "screwed up" (heck, I screw up all the time), but I still think it looks like you made an honest mistake... You said "I checked it against Sumbuddi, who by that time had been blocked as a sockmaster, and saw topically similar edit warring, so I blocked." I think everyone agrees that Wickland = 68.191.163.74 (and he seems to be OK with the change by Beeblebrox to a ban expiring Feb 24). The unfortunatly similar edit warring looks to me like it got Sumbuddi erroneously assumed to be a sockpuppet of Wickland. The crux of the matter is, is there a union of the sets Wickland/68.191.163.74 with Sumbuddi/86.179.106.212/86.180.171.151 and do you have any evidence (other than the similar AN/Edit warring entry) to support that contention? I guess we'll know more after the Checkuser results...

I have explained my inferences above, as I've already said. Daniel Case (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And Sumbuddi/86.179.106.212/86.180.171.151, please bottom-post your edits, this is getting really hard to read. Mojoworker (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nature of investigation

Although this investigation started out with the assertion that 86.179.106.212 was block evading, the block that was allegedly being evaded was made because User:Editor 410 claimed that User:Sumbuddi=User:Wickland/User:68.191.163.74. It seems to me that this claim by Editor 410 is completely without basis in fact, and therefore that the purpose of this investigation should be to determine the truth of Editor 410's claim. Otherwise the indefinite block made on User:Sumbuddi in return for lifting the block on unconnected user Wickland ws invalid ab initio, and there should be no case to answer. 86.180.169.62 (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care WHY you insist on evading your block, beyond a sense of entitlement. And if you'll be so kind, I'll decide what the nature of this report is. --King Öomie 13:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of us have any 'entitlement' to decide what the nature of this investigation is. That comes down to the admins.
I added another IP btw, seems our friend 'Editor 410' also misused AIV to claim some Namibian spammer adding links to 'South African online casinos' was a sockpuppet. He's not smelling too sweet at this point.86.176.157.120 (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this will come down to administrators. They're the only ones with the power to block you every time you hop onto a new IP to continue editing, despite your block. "Oh, I don't think that block was right. Therefore I've decided it doesn't count." That's the entitlement I'm talking about. Do whatever you want with Editor 410. I have had no contact with him, and have no idea who he is. --King Öomie 16:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an investigation to which we are supposed to post evidence. Editor 410 is abusing WP:AIV by posting each IP posting to this page as a vandal to be blocked, which is wasting time and undermining this process. His tactic appears to be discussion suppression.
As for wikilawyering, your position - 'Never mind that you might have been blocked based on false claims, it's more important to argue about whether that unfair block was itself breached' - seems to qualify. 86.176.157.120 (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk-endorsed. Waiting on CU now.
It is of tantamount importance, in fact. It's one of the main purposes of this section of Wikipedia. The purpose of this page is to determine whether Sumbuddi, who is blocked, is ignoring that block. (Spoiler: yes.) The wikilawyering comes into play when you add "Oh but wait, look, if I HADN'T been REBLOCKED based on an admin judgment call, I wouldn't have been blocked when I started evading, so it wouldn't have been evasion! And look at what I edited- userpages! That's not so bad, right? This is a waste of time- let it go!" --King Öomie 17:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In other words 'I don't care whether you were unfairly blocked, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where people get together to write articles about enforcing rules above all else.' BTW: 'Waste of time' seems to a very good description of you starting this investigation, in response to this [41] attempt to redirect User:Sumbuddi to the 'I've had enough of this nonsense' message at User talk:Sumbuddi. There was an obvious attempt to leave quietly, but nope, you didn't "let it go", you had to create drama.86.176.157.120 (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is the concept of Wikipedia:Assume good faith completely lost here? "Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence." Mojoworker (talk) 11:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Assume Good Faith does not mean Assume Good Behavior. I assume Sumbuddi was attempting to act in the best interest of the encyclopedia. I disagree with his methods. --King Öomie 14:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely with that statement. And I certainly would've done things differently than he did, but he has not been malicious and certainly didn't detract from the quality of the encyclopedia -- all of his edits have been in defending himself on these charges. Mightn't his behavior be covered under Wikipedia:Ignore all rules or even WP:COMMON? "Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective." Mojoworker (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would have trouble reconciling someone blocked using block evasion to accomplish most anything, especially something as self-interested (meant as non-insultingly as possible) as being UNblocked. It would take a truly exceptional, Jack Bauer-esque set of circumstances to fall into justified WP:IAR territory, as far as I'm concerned. He's obviously made use of {{unblock}} since. I don't approve of the forum shopping displayed in hitting up 3-4 different admins for the same problem. --King Öomie 19:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence for separate SPI against User:Editor 410
[edit]

To go at [42]

New account registered 8 days ago, but clearly a highly experienced user, hanging out at WP:AIV as well as making low-content edits to various pages largely reformatting wikisyntax. Account registration date is close to that of unblocking of previously indef blocked User:Wiki libs

Is pursuing a vendetta, see:

[43]

but also note [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.169.62 (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Falsely claimed that User:Wickland = User:Sumbuddi resulting in unnecessary drama.

He has kept a very low profile, avoiding posting on other pages, just tinkering with wikisyntax rather than making any controversial edits, blanking his own talkpage [54], and despite his preoccupation with User:Sumbuddi has limited himself strictly to AIV, presumably to avoid scrutiny.

Wiki libs was previously indef blocked for use of sockpuppets on a grand scale, and has form for similar activity, edit warring using multiple IPs see here - WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki libs/Archive#Evidence_submitted_by_Sumbuddi

Motive is obvious due to resentment at getting indef blocked, track record of sockpuppetry is well-established, behavioural similarities are there: use of automated tools, an interest in antivandalism, usurping his authority as a non-admin by removing comments from the AIV page (for which he has been warned), just as Wiki libs has a track record for threatening users with blocks that he has no power to impose. 86.180.169.62 (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser requests
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by King Öomie

 Clerk endorsed – I won't go into too much more information here per WP:BEANS. I can say right now that the level of wiki-lawyering I've seen here is stifling. –MuZemike 14:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's also make sure and run a check on User:Wickland while we're at it. –MuZemike 14:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note 212.183.140.48/29 blocked 1 week 3 days for clear block evasion. The person is blocked, which means that person is not allowed to edit on Wikipedia. That doesn't mean go to a series of IP addresses and continue the same disruption as before. –MuZemike 14:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, this just gets better - you blocked an entire ISP with 15 million or more customers. While I think that's quite funny, I don't really see the relevance of it to this page, when you consider that mobile ISPs use a small number of IPs (caching proxies) for all of their customers, and when it should be blatantly obvious, to take just one of those IPs:
[55]
that the user with edit summary 'Dweeb' between 10:48 on 16 February and 11:05 on 16 February is not the same person as the one who makes this edit 3 hours earlier [56], and is highly unlikely to be this person making this edit the previous night [57] and so on.
Considering the frequency with which self-evidently different users use the same IP, it should be abundantly clear that blocking the entire ISP for a week is going to affect a lot of people.
But anyway, interesting as that is, I don't see the relevance of it here. 86.180.171.151 (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that only a part of it, as it extends all the way out to a /19 range. In addition, I'm sure, after doing some research, that the ISP has currently assigned more than 8 IP addresses to all their customers. –MuZemike 18:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8 proxy servers can cover a lot of people. Looking at those 8 IPs, I see at .48 3 (probably all different) users over the last week, all constructive edits. At .49 there is a user posting 'Dweeb' for a couple of hours on 16th February, but otherwise several constructive edits, again by several different people. The 'Dweeb' vandal is on .50 on 12th February (which is more than a week ago), and makes another 'Dweeb' comment on 17th February, in between there is a constructive edit, which will be a different person. .51 in the last week has made four different edits, all constructive. .52 has over a dozen solid edits over the last week, with 1 instance of vandalism on one page. The 'Dweeb' user crops at .54, .53 and at .1 (which you didn't block, although it is blocked for 31 hours), but there are again useful contributes by multiple different people at both IPs. Finally .55 has only good contributions recently.
Anyway, you've definitely blocked many good contributors along with the one 'Dweeb' idiot. But probably this discussion belongs elsewhere, because I don't think it's relevant here. 86.180.171.151 (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Banking that this case will be resolved within the next couple of days, I have shortened the block length above to 3 days to try to minimize the potential damage. Obviously, this is stuff like this where a CheckUser will most certainly be useful as a regular user/admin can only look at so much. –MuZemike 19:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser is unlikely to show anything. All it can show is whether a user logged in from a given IP. The issue is that when it comes to mobile internet, it's less likely that anyone would ever bother to login to Wikipedia, as they are likely be on a device with limited capabilities, and it's time-consuming to even login from such a device. As mobile internet is generally a secondary source of internet access, as against the main PC where the user is probably a logged in user, it's likely that there will only be behavioural evidence of any connections. 86.180.169.62 (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And location. It would be strange to see a user using a series of German IP addresses and also editing from an IP address provided by a British cell phone network. --King Öomie 04:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no way in hell I'm reading all of this, Wickland is  Confirmed as is not Sumbuddi, 86.179.106.212 on the other hand is. Anything I'm looking for on the rest of the accounts? Brandon (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond a connection to Sumbuddi? No. Not here, at least. --King Öomie 21:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And the others? --King Öomie 14:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sumbuddi is currently blocked as a sock of Wickland. I would suggest this block be lifted. And then re-blocked for block evasion under the 86 range. --King Öomie 15:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

information Administrator note I've unblocked Sumbuddi per the negative CU evidence shown above. Is there anything else that needs to be done here? –MuZemike 18:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to apologise for using IPs to respond to the accusations against me. The context of this is that Wickland was incorrectly (as confirmed by CU) determined to be my sockmaster, and I was blocked indef as his sockpuppet. I wasn't informed of any of this, so it appeared as if I had been blocked without cause, and so I decided to leave. I thought that editing my user page with an IP would be the quickest way to do this. Obviously that was an error of judgement, and it was escalated here. I was blocked for 9 days as a result of the false accusations; I am pleased that this has been taken into account. I would also add that had I been made aware of the false Wickland accusations at the time, I would have handled this differently, as my indefinite block would not then have seemed irrational. Sumbuddi (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: nothing further to do here, Sumbuddi was incorrectly blocked on the assumption that they were editing under another account (namely Wickland (talk · contribs)), that was since disproven by CU, and has now been amended. MuZemike, the unblocking administrator is aware of the use of the IP to evade the block. There is also not enough evidence here to warrant a check on Mojoworker, and besides, if they were a sock, they would have come up in the previous check. Marking as closed, SpitfireTally-ho! 21:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sumbuddi/Archive&oldid=1091448620"