Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ThomasK/Archive

ThomasK

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

03 October 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• Ftsw (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 93.82.8.84 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Evidence submitted by Franamax

Named account and IP have edited four common pages in the last (only) day. Timing of edits indicates interleaved logged-in/logged-out editing. The named account claims repeatedly they are not socking, in close proximity to the IP edits. CU may need technical evidence to establish a link. I haven't checked whether the IP is an open proxy. Franamax (talk) 12:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

You will find that this is ThomasK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Thomaskh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as as well as the great majority of the anonymous edits from 188.23.0.0/16 and 93.82.0.0/20. This user is indefinitely blocked, and it would be useful to find other socks as well as any potential other IP ranges. I left a note on User:Jpgordon's talk page to have a look at this before this SPI case was opened. I'd be very surprised if Ftsw turns out to be someone else (but I've been wrong before). Antandrus (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

He's stopped pretending and admitted who he is. I have ranged-blocked 188.23.0.0/16 and 93.82.0.0/20 for a week, anon-only for now, to see if this helps. Antandrus (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

•  Clerk note: CheckUser won't link an account to an IP. Having said that, I think there might be justification here for a sleeper check. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Clerk endorsed It's pretty well evident that this is ThomasK (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). This has been going on for a while now and I've been tracking him with the assistance of Antandrus. For that reason, while a CU isn't really necessary to establish the link here, a sleeper check appears to be warranted, as well as potential for rangeblock. I've already DUCK blocked Ftsw. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

 Clerk note: Moved from WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Ftsw --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

 Administrator note I've blocked the IP for one week, hard, based on behavioral evidence. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

ThomasK is  Stale for CU purposes. No sleepers for Ftsw. The range I checked seemed to turn over pretty quickly and there seem to be some good contributors there - but not many. A narrow rangeblock is possible, please let me know if you think this would be a deterrent. TNXMan 17:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Since the sock is blocked and Antandrus has placed some rangeblocks, I'll mark this for close. TNXMan 14:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

---