Tiptoethrutheminefield

Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
02 May 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

The user in question (User:Tiptoethrutheminefield talk page) has a long history of disruptive behaviour, as mentioned on his talk page. Now he seems to use sockpuppet accounts. The way I noticed that the edits were similar was because he uses citation templates often, and only after the outing at the ANI noticeboard he has now stopped this temporarily. See how his edits are almost synchronised: with the first Ip's (176.239.33.146) here using CN templates and here, the latter only with 2 hours difference with his own account (Tiptoethruthemainfield) at 04:14 2 May 2015, account with which he already added CN tags to the article again only 2 hours before the previous edit at 02:01 2 May 2015; in turn, the second Ip's (176.239.103.190) edits (involving CN templates) here are synchronised with the first Ip's here (also involving CN templates). In this latter edit, he even mentioned "U mean mine field. Tiptoe may be rude but is honest" his supposed username, safely assuming that there is a connection with the first IP. He already had mentioned something similar here in his talk page. Note that all these IP's and his master account made this edits on the same day (May 2nd 2015). It is notable that three of them so far (including his master account) had common activity at the Lake Van Monster article after I put the deletion proposal. The third Ip (IP:176.239.84.142) connects his master account and the first Ip together here with another set of citation templates, noted clearly at the history page of the Topkhana Forest article. His fourth suspected sockpuppet account (IP:141.196.205.35, noticed while writing this) does mostly the same here and here at the Malatya article again today. I requested CheckUser because this all happened in one day. Taking into account these articles are not remotely popular or controversial, it is safe to assume that he has most probably engaged in sockpuppet activity, which may have even bigger proportions. --92slim (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC) 92slim (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE at 16:35 03 May 2015: A user has told me that an old account which was blocked for sockpuppetry (User:E4024) is related to these IP's, something I noticed while I monitored the fourth (IP:141.196.205.35) (see recent archived info here for the old investigation). New Ip's have also been found, and an old sockpuppet account added for reference. --92slim (talk) 23:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE at 21:19 03 May 2015: On this day 3rd of May 2015, two new sockpuppets appeared in the same page, here and here, but the latter (IP 176.239.35.30, history of edits) still has one characteristic. It perfomed similar actions as User:Tiptoethrutheminefield. The IP address added back the same kind of citation additions that the master account insists on adding to the topic articles; you can see that here in the 1904 Sasun Rebellion history page, with the help of another sockpuppet ninth IP 176.239.35.30 here and yet another of its other sockpuppets seventh IP 176.239.109.213 here. The definitive connection can be seen at this article, where the master account User:Tiptoethrutheminefield made a revert that all the sockpuppets did before and after the master account edit (all on the same day, 2nd of May 2015). See before here, here and here, see after here and here adding CN tags again.
A key connection between the master account and the socks can be seen here and here, in the Topkhana Forest article's history page. The supposed master account (User:Tiptoethruthemainfield) made a change adding random citations again from one of the sockpuppet accounts (the third IP 176.239.84.142) on May 1st 2015, and another of the sockpuppet accounts (the first IP 176.239.33.146) on May 2nd 2015, the same day when he started using the sockpuppet accounts massively (2nd of May), while the master account's edit is in between. The third mentioned IP which was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/176.239.84.142 used to edit the Lake Van Monster article, which is on currently for deletion and the Topkhana Forest article in the span of 5 minutes, heavily edited by the master account. If you look at the history of the Lake Van Monster article, you can see all the sockpuppets in action. Here in The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire article you can see all the sockpuppets in action too, here in the Lake Van article too, as well as here in the 1904 Sasun Uprising article. The fact that these accounts are connected can be seen at the history of the page The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. In the span of less than a day, three of the sockpuppets edited the page adding back random citation templates in many instances, just citing a few here, here, same link in which User:Tiptoethrutheminefield is mentioned as an "acquaintance" in the edit summary of the same sockpuppet by the first IP (IP 176.239.33.146), here, and here.
Lastly, if you look at the history of the first Ip (IP 176.239.33.146), you can see that it edited the same pages (Topkhana Forest, Lake Van Monster, Malatya, The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire ) as the master and other Ip's in the span of less than a day. To see the connection all its needed it's to look at the timeframes of the history pages, such as in the Malatya article here at 2:01 AM, master account, here a sock at 6 and 10 AM, first IP and here at 21:55, fourth IP. Most of the IP's started to work together on different articles on the night of 1/2th of May, mainly after I nominated the Lake Van Monster article for deletion here. For example, the seventh IP (IP:176.239.109.213 history) modified Defense of Van, 1904 Sasun Uprising, the latter article just 2 hours after the fifth Ip (IP:141.196.217.22 history. Fifth IP:141.196.217.22 and seventh IP:176.239.109.213 are connected here in the Defense of Van disamb. page; for reference, compare that to first and fourth IP's (176.239.33.146 and 141.196.205.35) here at editing a similar topic, or here, with master, first and second Ip's working in a similar time frame.
Note: There is a small possibility that User:Tiptoethrutheminefield is not connected to these IP's altogether, but the fact that he defended them so strongly is what made me suspicious. The socks and the master account defend each other, like in this same article page, with sock history here (the fourth IP, 141.196.205.35 which also edited Malatya, The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire and Lake Van on the 2nd of May), in the Lake Van Monster deletion page which I nominated on the 2nd of May 2015, where they defend each other (master account, first IP 176.239.33.146 and fourth Ip 141.196.205.35) and also in my own talk page, which they vandalised together here in the span of less than a day (also on the 2nd of May 2015; master account first, then second IP:176.239.103.190 here, then the fourth IP:141.196.205.35 twice here and here). If he had denounced their activity promptly I would have thought otherwise, but this is indeed not the case; it looks like something carefully planned. --92slim (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE at 01:46, 04 May 2015: As for the similarity between the sock edits and the banned users User:E4024 and User:Why should I have a User Name?, I easily spotted these:
  • Removal of old tags that follow long texts, with apparent prior knowledge of their existence; this was something they did very commonly. Edit summaries are also similar: Fifth IP:141.196.217.22 sockpuppet on 2nd of May 2015 here; User:Why should I have a User Name? on 21st June 2014 here and 2nd August 2014 here; User:E4024 on 1st Feb 2013 here and 9 Feb 2013 here.
  • Being absurdly outraged at the incorrect spellings of the Turkish language on edit summaries: Fifth IP:141.196.217.22 on 2nd May 2015 here; Seventh IP:176.239.109.213 on 3rd May 2015 here; User:Why should I have a User Name? on 28th June 2014 here; User:E4024 on 11th December 2012 here and 1st February 2013 here.
More info here. --92slim (talk) 23:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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

These IPs are definitely sock puppets. No doubt about that. If you ask me, they smell like E4024. See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/E4024/Archive. This account regularly shows up in Turkish-Armenian articles. Hope that helps. Cheers, Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Observer --- I won't be surprised if User:Tiptoethrutheminefield uses sock account. I actually know them for their disruptive behaviors. See this. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 21:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(This was in the talking page of this user (92slim) but was erased, so I add it here. Sorry for this.) You have been accused openly of making hate speech and bad-faith editions and you have not shown any serious reaction to those grave accusations. I take this as you were not even bothered by what you already knew. I'm afraid you are in Wikipedia with a negative agenda. Somewhere you ask people to trust you, I'm sorry I dare bet noone here can trust you, as things are, and never in the future if you can't realize a total transformation, something I see quite challenging for anyone in your position. Take care. --141.196.205.35 (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been accused of anything. That's solely your edit as a sockpuppet. --92slim (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry Mr Anon from Ankara - CheckUsers will immediately see that an IP address in Malatya and an IP address in Ankara and an IP address in Istanbul that are all being used at the same time are most unlikely to belong to the same person. They will also quickly see that my IP address is not even in Turkey. Don't waste your time bothering about this, it is just more bad behavior from 92slim. BTW, as bad behavior goes, I think this act is quite outrageous [1]. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Please don't tell anybody that I might be a pilot or flight attendant.--141.196.205.35 (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. An IP address is not a user. In any case, it's all too obvious now. --92slim (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A user with an IP address is still a user. It is a serious offense for you to have deleted the defense post of an accused user, a user that is being accused by you. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one using more than 7 different IP's linked to a blocked account, so maybe it's not. --92slim (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanjagenije: I haven't provided evidence for the other IPs yet because I found them today. They all commit similar edits, and I will provide the diffs above very soon. The reason I haven't mentioned E4024 is because another user mentioned them here, relating this issue to a February 2015 investigation. Thank you for taking your time with this issue. --92slim (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
92slim needs to be sanctioned for bringing patently false sockpuppetry allegations to this forum. 92slim also deleted from this page a response by one of the accused IP editors [2]. A quite astonishing act of arrogance! He is also going around reverting all edits made by editors using these IP addresses, claiming they are all "sockpuppets" despite the fact that nothing has been proven. Here are some examples: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] - there are many more. If the point I made about these IP addresses being located in various different cities in Turkey is not enough to reveal the laughable nature of his sockpuppetry allegations, maybe the fact that one of my alleged sockpuppets, the banned "Why should I have a User Name", had numerous long running editing disputes with me before his behavior got so bad that he was blocked. The "Why should I have a User Name" connection also reveals the bad faith nature of Étienne Dolet's comment. He brought a sockpuppetry case against Why should I have a User Name and was quite happy for me to contribute to it and provide evidence in it [9]. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're being accused of sockpuppetry. If this is not indeed the case (which I doubt), it will have to be seen after the evidence is presented. These reverts are justified, as they are made almost in complete timely synchronization by similar IP's on similar topics. --92slim (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerks, sorry to sound pushy, but could you please either close this case or start to proceed to some conclusion with it. I wish to raise the editing behavior of 92slim in another section. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vanjagenije, I am in absolute awe at your understanding of how to work around IP addresses as location identifiers. Yes, I too seem to be (in your assessment anyway) quite brilliant at it, but I am at a genuine complete loss as to explain HOW I do it. As you might know, our president/prime minister/great leader/divine being with the ear of God Himself Erdogan does not like us Turks using the internet, ungodly invention that it is. So could you explain to us how we can make posts made using our IP addresses in Turkey appear to be made from Britain. Please explain, in as technical a language as possible, how it is possible? How does one go about making lots of posts from cities all over Turkey and all at the same time and, again at the same time, make posts from a fixed IP address in Britain? As for your recommendation that I be blocked for a few days - this really will not do! I cannot control "my" mysterious IP use in Turkey - I don't know how or why or where or at what time "I" will do it again - but one thing is certain, there will be MANY more posts made. So a temporary block just is not going to be good enough. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tiptoethrutheminefield: Yes, actually, I can explain, it's very easy. You just install Hola (VPN) or something similar, and you can choose IP address from any part of the world. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that is inadequate. It does not explain how I did it. Hola will not work inside Turkey where internet use is monitored and huge numbers of websites and servers are blocked. It is the most Internet censored country in the world, you know. You cannot make a post from Malatya appear as if it came from Istanbul using Hola. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked a Turkish user in Turkey if my assessment is correct [10]. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example that reveals the extreme maliciousness behind 92slim's accusations here - as well as the incompetence of Vanjagenije. 92slim claims 141.196.205.29 is a sockpuppet of me. Here is 92slim in action on the 14th May, reverting an edit on the Counter-insurgency article by 141.196.205.29 [11] and giving as his edit summary "Rv possible sockpuppet of Tiptoethruthemainfield". The rv edit removes claims that in 1915 there was an insurrection by Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. Here is the main article for this 1915 insurgency in the Ottoman Empire. It is currently undergoing a RfD [12]. Here is my opinion on 12th May that it should be deleted [13]. There are NUMEROUS other reply posts I made in the RfD, especially note THE LOCATION of my reply on 13th May to an opinion that it should not be deleted [14]. Two posts later 92Slim makes a post [15], and he had already made an earlier post on 7th May. In other words, he is fully aware that I support the deletion of the article claiming there was an Armenian insurrection in 1915, is fully aware that I consider the claim to be a fiction, yet still claims that an IP editor inserting content stating there WAS an insurrection is me! And Vanjagenije, who seems to have examined nothing in detail, doesn't see that based on these edits and on the edits made by many of those IPs, that they cannot possibly be made by the same person. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try Tiptoe, specially with the name callings etc. Those IP's follow you everywhere, apart from the one you stated here (141.196.205.29), which I provided only yesterday I think. That one might not be you (regardless of what you did or do now with your master account after 2 May 2015) although after the above IP sockpuppet outing you still have sockpuppeted, as it was shown by me and @Vanjagenije: in the Clerk section below, so how about the other +10 sockpuppet IPs? As for "yet still claims that an IP editor inserting content stating there WAS an insurrection is me", I have never done that, sorry. You already have shown a big amount of disrespect to Wikipedia as a whole and to the Armenia Wikiproject with this edit here, where you also state your will to randomly add citation tags to many articles at once; a disruptive behaviour that @Vanjagenije: has correctly matched below in the Clerk section with some of the IP's that you have used for sockpuppeting (some of which, such as Fifth IP:141.196.217.22 for example, are connected to the past behaviour of blocked User:E4024, as stated on my update of this article made at 01:46 on 04 May 2015). It is clear that you are not here to contribute judging by your overall behaviour, personal attacks, sockpuppeting and many other instances of utter dishonesty, which is shown by the lack of manners towards other users that you have demonstrated around here. PS. Referencing what Tiptoe has said above "but one thing is certain, there will be MANY more posts made. So a temporary block just is not going to be good enough" - at last well said, it's not good enough. --92slim (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh ...so now it's a "might not be you". "Might" did not stop you from reverting someone's edit based on your unproven allegation. I guess "might" becomes "certain" when the "might" does anything that touches your sad edits. 92slim - judge, jury, executioner - all rolled into one! Vanjagenije hasn't matched any IP with anyone or anything. His incompetence is due to being unable to actually look at the content of any edits. His incompetence is never questioning why, if by using that miraculous program he cited, I can choose to be any IP in the WHOLE WORLD, why I would chose them all to be in Turkey and why I would not make some actual accounts using that wonderful program that can allow me to have as many identities as I could ever use. And all that to just revert the sad little edits of one 92slim, edits which will never stand up to scrutiny or citations in the long term. His incompetency is because anyone with even the smallest degree of competency would have dismissed your laughable fabrications out of hand. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, you added citations to anyone's edits for absolutely no reason, even when citations were already provided in the articles. Also, the above examples of your past and present disruptive behaviour still stand, so I don't think I have much else to add to this discussion. So far, you have given absolutely no reason as to why you shouldn't be blocked, apart from the "I'm innocent, it's not me". --92slim (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A footnote: User asked me about that diffrent IPs and VPN thing. As far as i know from my experiences, your ip changes when you use VPN (obviously), BUT, Wikipedia doesn't allow you to edit when you are logged in via VPN. So apart from that, there are two logical ways; designating a random IP via using CMD on Windows(or using modem interface), or, constantly pressing the reset button on your modem (which gives you another IP from your provider's LOCAL bureau). Altough Turkish gov't put some obstacles, these methods do work on the grounds of anonimity.

BTW i didint read any of the text above so im not able to comment on this sockpuppet investigation, i do not say that he is innocent, nor guilty. I just answered his question. kazekagetr 20:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you KazekageTR for replying. In other words, Vanjagenije assertion that I could edit Wikipedia anonymously using Hola or a similar VPN is patently false. And neither could I choose specific IP addresses assigned to different parts of Turkey using other methods. Of course "I" could (as one of the IP address editors sarcastically suggested) be an airline pilot flying between Istanbul and Ankara and Izmir and Malatya and various other cities, who thinks, after a hard day's flying, that 92slim's sad little edits are of such devastating importance that they must be reversed, requiring a visit to an internet café in each city I'm in. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
I'm not entirely comfortable with blocking said master as there could be some crossover with different master/socks. I have gone ahead and blocked some of the IPs including a /24 range and I've semi-protected some of the pages to curtail the IP hopping. Tiptoe should avoid reinstating controversial IP edits in Turkish/Armenian conflict areas or they could be seen the next time as proxying someone's sock edits. I'll leave this open for further review.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More