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

23 December 2012

Suspected sockpuppets

• 71.90.216.96 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 96.32.181.73 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Rhinoselated (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Latish redone (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

This IP user has been making contentious edits (complete with argumentative edit summaries) over the past couple of weeks on college football-related articles, especially articles relating to SEC schools. He obviously has been around before, because he links wikipolicies like nobody's business.

Today, I read through his wikilawyer-y arguments in a deletion discussion that he initiated a few days ago and finally recognized the style. I strongly suspect that is User:Latish redone, aka User:Rhinoselated and User:All in, who was banned for exactly the same kind of sockpuppet-enhanced semi-serious trolling in the same types of articles over a year ago.

Latish undone made some constructive edits at one time and actually started the list up for deletion. The anonymous IP user now demands its immediate removal because it was created by banned user. He's kept the discussion going with circular logic, quotes from irrelevant policy, and you-gotta-be-kidding-me arguments expressed in a falsely indignant tone, just like the suspected sockmaster used to do. My certainty neared 100% when I ran a WHOIS query that traced the IP back to Athens, Georgia, as Rhinoselated was all over Georgia Bulldog-related articles. It's very quack quack, imo.

I would bet the change currently in my pocket (43 cents) that this IP user is the same guy, back to have more fun at Wikipedia's expense. Zeng8r (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

• Take a look at the convoluted wikilawyering from the IP address in question in this ongoing deletion discussion and his own talk page. Then compare it to the near-identical argumentative style on Latish redone's talk page. Note that Lr was actually blocked from editing his own talk page for this sort of stuff.

• Another example is this deletion discussion from 2010, in which his sock Rhinoselated used the same techniques to keep earnest editors arguing for days about a photo deletion that should have been quick and clear-cut. Again, he was just playing around with the process for his own amusement.

• Note that near the end of the looong debate linked above, Rhinoselated was strongly suspected of violating WP:PANICVOTE by using at least one anonymous IP address (96.32.181.73's contributions) to keep things stirred up. Interestingly, a trace of that old IP points to Athens, Georgia. A trace of the current IP in question (71.90.216.96's contributions) also points to Athens and the same ISP, Charter Communications.

• The user has a long history of IP sockpuppetry and spurious ANI reports. See this example: [1], and be sure to scroll up to the discussion right above to see even more.

It's pretty clear, imo. --Zeng8r (talk) 14:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Assuming that I am Latish/Rhinoselated or whatever other name(s) the vandal used, why would I nominate my own article for deletion? 71.90.216.96 (talk) 03:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To stir the pot and get reactions, as always. Wikipedia procedures were not set up to amuse you. Zeng8r (talk) 03:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's your opinion. My opinion is that the article should be deleted for the reasons I described in the nomination. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 04:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that this IP user, while feigning ignorance about wikipolicies, filed a report at WP:ANI claiming that I'm persecuting him or some such. As mentioned, this attempt to portray himself as the persecuted one is another similarity to his (alleged) other socks. Zeng8r (talk) 04:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know the details of the Latish/Rhinoselated cases but the block logs suggest reasons other than what Zeng8r is saying. The block reason given for Rhinoselated is "vandalism-only account" while the block reason given for Latish is sockpuppet of Rhinoselated. So while I am not familiar with whether Latish and Rhinoselated engaged in tendentious editing or whatever Zeng8r is saying, my knowledge based on the block logs is that Rhinoselated and Latish are accounts used by a vandal and that is why they were permanently blocked, not anything related to their editing style or whatever. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 05:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

•  Clerk declined - CheckUsers generally don't comment on IP addresses. This case will have to be investigated on behavioural evidence alone Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Clerk note: Also, could you please supply some diffs to demonstrate similarity between the account and the IP? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to single out a single example. Just look down the list of edits for this IP user, Rhinoselated, and Latish redone and you'll find three lists of identical and closely related articles accompanied by long, argumentative, and faux-policy wikilawyering. It's hard to tell the difference. Zeng8r (talk) 04:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little digging for evidence; see above. --Zeng8r (talk) 14:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm convinced. Either way the IP is definitely editing disruptively, so I've blocked for 2 months. Closing. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

10 January 2013

Suspected sockpuppets

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

CU request -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

•  Confirmed to each other. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

13 January 2013

Suspected sockpuppets

• All in (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Latish redone (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (original master)

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

See [2]. Procedural filing. Rschen7754 09:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

• Closing, but this needs to become the new master as the oldest sock. Rschen7754 09:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Clerk note: I've moved it, though I'd appreciate the archiver checking to make sure I didn't mess it up. Rschen7754 09:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]