Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Veecort

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:Veecort[edit]

Suspected sock puppeteer

Veecort (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets

70.190.149.252 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
151.201.117.169 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
164.156.231.55 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Report submission by User:McJeff

McJeff (talk) 09:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Veecort, a borderline WP:SPA, recently returned from an extended wikibreak to revert to a months old version of ITT Technical Institute, found here[1], justifying his reversion with a bible verse.
IP address 151.201 reverts justifying it with the same bible verse [2]
Veecort was written up on 3RR and given a 24 hour ban for disruptive editing. IP addresses 70.190 and later 164.156 appeared after the first block.
Veecort is given to paranoid accusations, such as ITT Tech is building a fake class-action lawsuit to identify potential suers so they can be "neutralized" [3].
IP address 70.190 has made no edits to Wikipedia outside a revert on the ITT Tech article and a post on slakr's talk page.
- Slakr has posted neither on the article or the talk page, but he did give Veecort a block. Veecort removed the block notice from his talk page rather than appeal it... how exactly did 70.190 manage to find slakr?
IP address 70.190 writes the same way Veecort does - slightly awkward sentence structure i.e. "i undid erasure", extensive use of parenthesis. I know that parenthesis are part of English grammar (don't we all?) but Veecort tends to abuse them. [4], [5] (in the edit summary), [6]... it would be easier to link to edits in which Veecort did not make use of parenthesis.
He also makes a similar paranoid accusation, that I am anonymously working for the company [7] - an accusation made by Veecort multiple times against other users. [8]
IP address 70.190 shows up after Veecort has been blocked for disruptive editing and 3RR by ~~J.delanoy~~ slakr. If 70.190 was considered to be Veecort, his reversion would have been Veecort's third of the day. McJeff (talk) 09:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, did not block Veecort, I merely warned him and threatened to block him. I have little experience in SSP cases, this is so blatantly obvious it is not even funny. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 16:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, it was slakr that blocked him. Sorry. McJeff (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP address 164.156, an open IP from Pennsylvania, reverted the article [9]. As slakr noted in the checkuser, both of the other IP addresses Veecort used probably originated from Pennsylvania as well.

Comments by McJeff

Unrelated to sockpuppetry, but this edit [10] is one of the most blatant COI's I've ever seen.
While I was writing this up, slakr prepared a Checkuser on Veecort

Comments by Dayewalker

Veecort has admitted here [11] to canvassing for help on this article off wiki, on an extrement POV forum. Dayewalker (talk) 09:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by IP editor 70.190

I am 70.190, i am not a sockpuppet, i don't know who veecort is and i find it insulting that you think i write like him. I live in AZ infact all of the ip addresses suspected of sock puppeteering are not even in the same state. So i don't know how you could even make that assumption. How did i manage to find slakr, easy it's all on wikipedia as i been following your edit war. I don't agree with your opinion that it's WP:UNDUE, it is valid information. Instead of getting rid of content, why don't you add content? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.149.252 (talk) 00:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by EdJohnston

Not clear that checkusers will do much with this case unless it is clear what action would be taken as a result. My guess is this should be closed with no further action. See a 3RR case that has links to many of the separate discussions. If Veecort has reformed, and if the remaining IP editors are mostly people he once recruited on an external forum, there's not much we can do except hold the IPs to our normal editing standards. The use of these IPs is not block evasion by Veecort. Most likely this SSP should be closed, but we should be willing to watchlist ITT Technical Institute for any COI-affected or POV editing by the IP accounts named above. Also I think there's enough basis for extended semi-protection of the article if IPs continue to revert without waiting for Talk page consensus.

Veecort (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has self-identified as 151.201.117.169 (talk · contribs) in one of his comments at Talk:ITT Technical Institute. When you combine Veecort's edits of ITT Technical Institute with those of 151.201 he was over 3RR on 22 November, but Veecort was already blocked 24 hours by Slakr for his edits that day. So no further action appears to be needed on that. EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Veecort and I have reconciled and agreed to work together. I think this can be closed safely. McJeff (talk) 10:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

In the absence of further comment, I'm closing this report with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 05:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]