Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Threeafterthree/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Threeafterthree

Threeafterthree (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
12 October 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Cirt [edit]
Violation of sock policy
Use of account and IP to edit war together
Use of account and IP to influence talk page discussion
Prior history of blocks for socking

Comment: A CU check is not needed to confirm the recent socking through the IP usage. However, a CU check could be helpful, to check for likely sock activity from main account with other accounts. Regardless, admin action can be taken without CU, on the behavioral evidence alone. -- Cirt (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]
Comment by Epeefleche
  • Socking by Threeafterthree again? Not good. Outrageous, really. And a history of six blocks, as recent as June of this year.

Frankly, I wondered at first whether there was any chance that it was inadvertent ... but the AGF was soundly rebutted by him, wearing his IP mask, writing: "Can a registered editor please bold and title the first paragraph ADL and remove the last sentence from that paragraph which seems out of place? Thank you, --68.9.117.21" There's simply no wriggling out of it. Clearly Three is using the IP address to sock again, and game the system. Sad.

Concur that a CU check is in order, under the circumstances/history of socking, to check for likely sock activity from main account with other accounts.

Time for an indef block not only on the IP, but the main account as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Hans Adler

For some reason a user whose name I barely remember (but nothing else) has alerted me to an SPI concerning a user whose name I barely remember (but nothing else). Even after looking at this situation, nothing strikes a bell. However, now that I have looked into it: I see the following behaviour in late July that is not in accordance with our sockpuppet policy:

  • 2010-07-20 19:05 Threeafterthree decides to go on wiki break [15]
  • 2010-07-20 19:11 Threeafterthree makes another edit (a sign of addiction that most of us will recognise from our own behaviour)
  • 2010-07-20 23:27 The user continues editing, now logged out [16]
  • 2010-07-24 19:43 Thoroughly unconstructive talk page post [17]
  • 2010-07-26 Two posts to ANI
  • 2010-07-27 17:36 Extreme recklessness in contributing to their own talk page section [18] – but see illusion of transparency as to compatibility with AGF
  • 2010-07-27 13:35 The user makes what looks superficially like their last intentionally logged-out edit
  • 2010-07-27 17:14 Threeafterthree is officially back from the wiki break

With a small amount of AGF, I see sanctionable behaviour but no premeditated socking. An editor tries to go on wiki break but fails spectacularly and decides to log in again. I also note that the 68.9.116.87/Backroomlaptop blocks are not very relevant since they happened years ago in 2006 around a bona fide content dispute. (In fact the article Leo Frank currently does not state the claim which the user argued should be removed as it didn't have a proper source. The difference between innocence and acknowledgement of a miscarriage of justice needs a nuanced treatment.) I can understand where the 2006 block comment "evading blocks with sockpuppets etc., creepy anti-Jewish feel to edits" comes from, but given the edits I have looked at "creepy anti-Jewish feel" seems to hit the nail on its head, rather than being an understatement. Hans Adler 08:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Collect

The edit in question (request to have article page edited) hardly seems notable enough for any major doling of punishments. I daresay many editors have edited while "logged out" and this is not a material edit to any article by a long stretch. Lacking an actual content dispute, let sleeping dogs lie. Collect (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jusdafax

I agree with those who express concerns. I have previously taken a stand at ANI against this Users editing and am not surprised to see an SPI report filed. I would like to ask for a reconsideration of the decision to not use the CU powers here. If there is an ongoing problem, lets get to the bottom of it instead of leaving the situation under a cloud, which does a disservice to all Wikipedia users interested in transparency. Threeafterthree has an established history of questionable editing practice and a resulting notable block history. Agree that the IP should be blocked to prevent this type of situation from happening again, inadvertent or not. Thanks for your time and best wishes to all, Jusdafax 16:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
  •  Clerk note: I honestly don't see the suspison of socking here. This evidence is more for a WP:DUCK block and from what I can see this would be Fishing. -- DQ (t) (e) 12:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk declined - Self admitting IP and no conclusive evidence to show that there is other socks lurking around. Admins: Block IP, Warn Threeafterthree. -- DQ (t) (e) 17:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: First, I've notified Threeafterthree of this case. I do find this edit to be particularly troublesome, so I'm inclined to block the IP for a decent amount of time. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing since last edit was on the 7th and few days stale. Do note a post on HelloAnnyong's TP. -- DQ (t) (e) 12:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Threeafterthree/Archive&oldid=1066179939"