Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki libs/Archive: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tiptoety (talk | contribs)
47,300 edits
Undid revision 327405380 by Skater (talk) This is an archive
SPCUClerkbot (talk | contribs)
30,768 edits
Archiving Wiki libs's case
Line 210: Line 210:


{{SPIclose|archive}}
{{SPIclose|archive}}
----{{SPIarchive notice|Wiki libs}}
===== <big>Report date November 27 2009, 11:27 (UTC)</big>=====
{{SPIcat}}

======<span style="font-size:150%"> Suspected sockpuppets </span>======
* {{checkip|115.167.84.73}}
* {{checkip|115.167.80.252}}
* {{checkip|115.167.84.109}}
* {{checkip|78.144.251.132}}
* {{checkuser|1=Scieberking}}
* {{checkip|115.167.84.73}}



======<span style="font-size:150%"> Evidence submitted by [[User:Occultaphenia|Occultaphenia]] </span>======

I am not one to complain, but I suspect sockpuppetry: these editors appear to be attempting to remove previously cited content in regard to the Pete Townsend page, regarding Townsend influencing Jimmy Page appears to have been in the article cited and uncontested. At first the content was removed without reason, all with a (Tag: references removed) in the comment for removal section, all within a quick suspicious amount of time, with most not having much editing outside the Townsend page,
with only one (Scieberking) giving an ambigious reason claiming the link is "Malware" which doesn't sound right or legit reason and the link doesn't appear to be this incorrectly claimed classification. They all appear not to have a real log-in, other than the above mentioned. This removal continues, despite the source backing up the claim. I also notice that user 'Wiki Libs' appears to have been very protective of the Jimmy Page article, and appears to have a history of sockpupperty, though this may be less likely due to different editing reasons. I hope i have done the right thing, as I do not want to get into an 'edit war' so to speak, but these accounts point to sneakery to me. Please check just to make sure.

======<span style="font-size:150%"> Comments by accused parties &nbsp;&nbsp; </span>======
<small><span style="font-weight:normal">''See [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims|Defending yourself against claims]].''</span></small>
<!-- PLEASE NOTE: CheckUsers *will not* read excessively long arguments in this section. Please consider this when starting an argument with someone -->

======<span style="font-size:150%"> Comments by other users </span>======


======<span style="font-size:150%"> CheckUser requests </span>======
{{RFCU| E | No2ndletter | Checked }} &nbsp;&nbsp; <small>Requested by [[User:Occultaphenia|Occultaphenia]] ([[User talk:Occultaphenia|talk]]) 11:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC) </small>





======<span style="font-size:150%"> Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments </span>======
*{{clerknote}} Merged from now-deleted [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/115.167.84.73]]. Only author was [[User:Occultaphenia|Occultaphenia]]. <font color="navy">'''[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 02:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

* {{user|Scieberking}} is the 115.* IPs, unrelated to Wiki libs. [[User:Brandon|Brandon]] ([[User talk:Brandon|talk]]) 03:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

======<span style="font-size:150%"> Conclusions </span>======
*<s>Per the above comments, {{no action}} will be taken (with the assumption that the check did not reveal any other unrelated sockfarms that needed to be dealt with). [[User:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#4E562C;font-weight:bold">Tiptoety</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#FFDB58">talk</span>]]</sup> 06:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)</s>


Given the evidence that :115.167.84.73, 115.167.80.252, 115.167.84.109, 78.144.251.132 and
Scieberking appear to have been proven socks of the same account, then shouldnt they be block?
action should be taken. --[[User:Occultaphenia|Occultaphenia]] ([[User talk:Occultaphenia|talk]]) 08:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
:Yep, sorry. I misread Brandon's comment above. As such, I have blocked all the IPs and the named account for a period of one week. Cheers, [[User:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#4E562C;font-weight:bold">Tiptoety</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#FFDB58">talk</span>]]</sup> 02:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
{{SPIclose|archive}}


----
----

Revision as of 02:14, 30 November 2009



Wiki libs

Wiki libs (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date October 15 2009, 02:36 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Sumbuddi

User:Wiki_libs appears to be using sock puppets for the following purposes:

  • Violating WP:3RR at Russell Blaylock (reverts [1], [2], [3] and [4] - the latter using the 202 IP)
  • Edit warring/wikistalking at Juice. Wiki libs and I came into conflict over Pete Townshend (see for instance [5]), and he appears to have decided to pursue a vendetta anonymously, using anonymous IPs to wikistalk/edit war with me at Juice - see edits to that page from 13 October onwards. Also Violating WP:3RR at that same page ([6], [7], [8], [9]).

Specific comments:

  • the edit war at Juice is highly improbable - the chance that three anon IPs would be checking the page history on an uncontroversial page and all coming to the same conclusion is small. At least two of the anons show an unlikely command of Wikipedia policy, with Special:Contributions/80.175.78.114 accusing me of vandalism and slapping on a Template:Test2a on my user page. This page is not a controversial one and this edit war makes no sense.
'Previous change seems more WP:POINT violation instead of constructive edit. If you don't like the image, find a better one. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox' [10]
as part of the Juice edit war, which is identical in style to the edit summary left by Wiki Libs on Russell Blaylock
'It already says that in the lead-in. No need to duplicate unless you're standing on a soapbox trying to prove a point' [11]
just 37 minutes earlier. The chance of the anon user and Wiki Libs both writing in the same officious, protocol-focused style, linking two the same two protocols on completely different pages within 45 minutes of each other is basically zero, especially given the overlap on pages edited.
=Follow-up - users added following input by Luminifer==
  • 142.167.170.136, 142.167.169.71, Peter Fleet, 81.178.36.21 (the latter added by Sumbuddi) - 3RRing/edit warring at Power Ballad [16] - see dispute of 31 August-1 September.
  • 81.178.36.21 IP was also used in a Wiki libs edit war here: [17] - see 22nd April - 26th April 2009. In that war the sequence of reverts to Wiki Libs preferred version is: Wiki Libs, Wiki Libs again, 156.34.142.110 (Wiki Libs signs his posts with this IP - this is definitely him), Wiki Libs again, Wiki Libs again, then 81.178.36.21. Note subsequent use of Wiki libs' IPS 44 and 53. There may be other sockpuppets here. I am not sure.
  • 81.178.36.21 also used to anomyously slap on Luminifer [18]
  • 142.167.163.133, 202.174.177.49 and Peter Fleet - pursuing a sockpuppeted agenda against User_talk:Rockgenre and Luminifer (see sock puppet accusation by the 202 IP here: [19]).
  • Current content dispute at Pete Townshend - 82.69.46.23 posts in defence of Wiki libs' POV - this user's other edits are to death metal type articles, shares similar predilection for removing certain sources as Wiki libs. Likely sockpuppet of Wiki Libs. (Note that 82.69.8.81 is the same (small) ISP, and did Wiki libs' bidding in the '1960s in heavy metal' war, and has an identical editing style to the 82.69.46.23 IP - these two 82.69 IPs are definitely the same person) 202.174.177.44 - proven sockpuppet (see above) posts Wiki libs' POV. Peter Fleet - posts a proposed 'compromise', which Wiki Libs, as puppet master, then reposts, saying he agrees with that user.
  • Fair Deal - same writing style as wiki libs, various overlaps with suspected sock Peter Fleet at Jimmy Page, same 'I am always correct'-type message on user page. All 3 users overlap at [20] with the same POV.
  • GripTheHusk - same writing style, same articles edited, part of the sock network used to simulate consensus on Pete Townshend. Also enforced Wiki libs' POV at 1960s in heavy metal music and at other pages.
  • BC Rocky - same articles edited, employed to simulate consensus for the Pete Townshend RFC, helps Wiki libs and his sock network edit war on numerous pages, see also Talk:Hot Space, where consensus is created using 3 Wiki libs sock puppets to appear like 3 people agreeing and only 1 disagreeing, when in reality there are only two people with different views there - Wiki libs + socks, and Greg D. Barnes.
  • 202.20.0.166 - joining in a sockpuppet investigation with Wiki libs, reverting to Wiki libs version of the 1960s in heavy metal music, getting involved on Wiki libs' side in a dispute about Guns and Roses, likewise at Jimmy Page, where he directly endorses suspected Wiki libs' puppet Fair Deal - who obviously shares Wiki libs' POV, which is also entered at that dispute.
Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Comment Only one of these IPs is even Canadian. --King Öomie 13:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I know how he's done this, but I won't say because I don't want to be accused of outing. Suffice to say I think the evidence above speaks for itself. Sumbuddi (talk) 13:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proxies, etc etc. Meh, I'm not sure how much I can say for evidence like this. The editing styles are similar, but the article overlap is simply not a determinant at all- if there was no overlap, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all and, by the same token, if other, uninvolved users had similar overlaps, they'd be listed here as well (who knows, that may be happening now). A starting point, to be certain, but not evidence in and of itself. The ISP used by the canadian IP is an interesting case (see Stentor Alliance)- at this point in time, either a very large portion of Canadian IPs report that ISP, or very small (need a Canadian to clarify). I have a feeling this will come down to Checkuser. --King Öomie 14:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wasn't thinking proxies. And it wasn't the overlap that tipped me off, it was the edit war at 'juice', which would just about be plausible from one anon IP, but when it became three it was a bit of a WTF moment. And then when the last anon IP slapped a warning template on my talkpage accusing me of vandalism, it was a deja vu moment compared with Wiki libs doing much the same to my talk page a few days earlier. The three IPs all doing what they did doesn't make sense until you realise that they are the same person trying to pick a fight. I don't edit Wikipedia much so there aren't really any other candidates for that person. The edit overlap is more the cream on top really. Sumbuddi (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an analysis of the overlapping edit history of Wiki libs and the IPs you've posted here. There's a 100% intersect between the articles edited by the IPs and Libs, but considering Libs has edited 6,300 pages[21], I can't speak to how significant that is. I will point out that I find it odd that he'd choose to use socks to cumulatively 3rr on a page he'd never edited on his actual account, and use a further sock to edit normally, whilst not using his actual account at all (he's previously pointed out socks to me based on gaps in editing history much like the one you see here- a simple mistake I wouldn't expect him to make if he were to fall to the Dark Side). I'll also point out the the edit one IP referred to as pointy and soapy did seem pointy and soapy (what with its use of scare quotes). I too link policies in that manner on occasion. But again, Checkuser. --King Öomie 17:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the IPs were used with the intent to 3RR in the first instance, but rather to pick a fight without it being linked to his own account (wikistalking), which, as explained, is in dispute with me. As for editing 6,300 pages, I checked the previous five anon IPs prior to the ones in question here [22] and there is ZERO overlap. 0/5 compared with 3/3 looks pretty significant to me (especially if you consider that something like Russell Blaylock is not an oft-edited page... BTW, the quotes were to clarify that 'juice drink' has specific meaning (defined further up the article in wording that I guess has been there a while). Sumbuddi (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just can't imagine why he'd sock at all. There's no point, and he knows it. Quickly caught, quickly reverted. I DO wish there was a way to see how a user got from one page to the next. But, checkuser. --King Öomie 18:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was recently brought to my attention. I would like to point out two similar IPs that also follow this pattern, at [23].. I originally suspected Peter Fleet (who, along with Libs, I have been involved with reprting at WQA), because of the AU IP addresses, so I have added them as well and leave it up to the investigator to decide what to do about this. Two similar IPs were also involved in an edit war here[24] which was related to the WQA I filed, and strangely dissipated soon after. Luminifer (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I investigated + added some more. Not sure about Fair deal, but given the 100% solid evidence of sockpuppeting using the 202.174.177 addresses at the very least, it would be best not to let any slip through the cracks. Sumbuddi (talk) 03:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
100% solid evidence that it is LIBS? You mentioned an explanation for the pervasive Australian IP addresses? --King Öomie 03:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Er yeah, all those 202.174.177 IPs not just editing not just Wiki libs' articles, but also supporting him on Wikiquette review and backing him up on his various POVs as well I would say is 100% solid evidence. The explanation for the use of Australian, British, Canadian and New Zealand IPs btw can be found by doing a whois on the 80.175 IP and then looking at the corporate website that should lead you to, which shows a presence in those four countries and those four countries alone. Also if you ping the New Zealand version of that company's corporate website to find the IP that's hosting it, and then do a whois on that, you'll find (a) it's hosted using the same small business-only ISP as the 202.20 IP I listed as a sockpuppet above AND the 202.174.177 range, (b) that that ISP has a presence in both NZ and AUS, and (c) that the 202.174.177.* ISP, the 202.20.x.x ISP and that company's ISP are all the same ISP. So they all tie up rather nicely in fact. And the named user socks all state where they live, and it's various permutations of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, which you will have seen from the above, Wiki libs is well able to tie up with IP-wise. Sumbuddi (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: From Libs's (wikipedia) email auto-response:

Work is forcing me to travel to Texas and then to Northern Cal. for the next 9 days. Will be back online soon after. Will still try to check-in along the way.

--King Öomie 00:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know what to say about the checkuser results. I'm dumbfounded. This is incredibly disappointing, to say the least.
Of Libs, I mean. Not Brandon. --King Öomie 05:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well heck, I never really thought... anyway, could we put this on hold pending a comment from libs? It seems unfair to have this all go through whilst he's away (I know that the reporter couldn't have know he was away but the point stands). That will mean leaving this open until the 24th (unless he manages to log in during the time he's travelling), hope that's OK with everyone. It looks like he logged in as BC Rocky on the 18th, but that account did not have notification of this discussion, so he may still be unaware of it, I have now notified the accounts BC Rocky, Cold Goast and Alisprings of the investigation, so hopefully libs won't miss it next time he signs on. Kind regards SpitfireTally-ho! 06:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent him another email, so yes, hopefully he sees it. What I find interesting is that some of these accounts appear to have been created for no real purpose. No 3rr by proxy, not harassment, no consensus-pushing. It just doesn't make sense to me. --King Öomie 06:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well the users all seem to have been created 'clean' with the intent to have an account to bring out at some point in the future. It wouldn't really do to have a brand new user 3RRing/consensus-pusing/whatever, but if you cultivate it for a while then it serves that purpose better. Brandon has added three new users created within the last few days, which I didn't spot, but all the older ones have gone on to perform harassing/3RRing/consensus-pushing later - it seems reasonable to suppose the new ones will do as well. Sumbuddi (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. This is like finding out a police officer you know, with numerous commendations, has been stealing evidence on the side. --King Öomie 12:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unbelievable....of all of the people I've came across on Wikipedia I never would of thought he'd be a puppetmaster. I'm am shocked, and dissapointed.--SKATER Speak. 19:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This person actually used a number of users (at least 3), sometimes one to defend his or her own point of view, on the LIttle Richard discussion page. As a new user with a great deal of knowledge about the topic, I felt overwhelmed with the tone of some of the comments and unreasonable criticism. Will LIBS be allowed to continue? This is very bad business for Wikipedia.--Smoovedogg (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you posting to a CLOSED SPI to ask this question? Blocks have been doled out, it's over. --King Öomie 15:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I felt it worthwhile to document here what may be the best example of sockpuppeting use of these accounts, [25] (or permalink with my last post on that discussion here [26])... Libs uses 6 of the accounts mentioned here to fake consensus, when in fact there were only two users in the discussion - myself, and Libs. Libs even went so far as to state that consensus was reached, here [27]. I know this is over, but I wanted this particular example documented here for anyone who wanted it. Luminifer (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DEADHORSE-It's over, drop it and move on.--SKATER Speak. 07:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, take another look at the Checkuser result. --King Öomie 14:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: D (3RR using socks )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Sumbuddi (talk) 02:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]


 Clerk endorsed MuZemike 18:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions
  • information Administrator note Alternate accounts blocked and tagged. Wiki libs given a 1 month block. Any future sockpuppetry will result in an indefinite block. NW (Talk) 23:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone keeping score, this addition has not edited since 10/13 and therefore was not used to circumvent a block. --King Öomie 00:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date November 23 2009, 02:23 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by NuclearWarfare

The evidence from Sumbuddi was posted on my talk page, so I am opening this case. Note that if this is indeed Wiki libs' sockpuppet; it would not be a violation of his block, as it stopped editing before Wiki libs' was blocked. NW (Talk) 02:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Actually there were three edits on 9 November 2009, after the block.) Sumbuddi (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow I failed to notice those. Disregard the last please. NW (Talk) 02:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence submitted by Sumbuddi

Hi, I'm messaging you since it looks as though we may have missed a sockpuppet on the Wiki Libs investigation.

Compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fozforus with blocked Libs' puppet http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Wether_B&oldid=283087295

Libs' sockpuppets modus operandi with his sockpuppets appears to have been in each case to slap together a user page with some userboxes. Fozforus' first actions as a putative new user was to enrol in three wikiprojects [28]

Other proven libs socks for comparison: [29] [30] (and see contributions - same pattern [31]). Blocked User:Alisprings was not yet used for sockpuppeting, but libs also started by creating the puppet - [32]. User:Fair Deal is much older, but starts the same way: [33], as does User:Aussie Ausborn at[34].

Basically this behaviour sticks out like a sore thumb. Anyway, apart from that there are very incriminating edit patterns, check out: Bon Jovi at [35]. Wiki libs has a major obsession with genres for his pet metal bands, and numerous of his socks are active there - see for instance, [36] by 'GripTheHusk', then, a few hours later: [37], much the same edit, by Fozforus (in between them is 142.167.182.250, another definite libs sock, from the same 142.167. range as several socks reported previously, but it's stale, so that's just an aside).

If you go through the other edits by Fozforus, they are all **highly* incriminating if you've seen Libs' editing patterns, e.g., [38] where Queen are removed from glam rock, the discussion at [39] (scroll up also for use of numerous Libs' sockpuppets in this 'debate'), this: [40] 'talking to self' episode on AN/I. Also this: [41] and this: [42] on the Pete Townshend child pornography debate (see closed SPI - large numbers of Libs' sock puppets used here). There is more evidence, I think this is enough though?

As an aside, Wiki Libs (as himself) is denying his sockpuppetry here: [43], when it is plain from the contributions: [44] that it was him. Evidently he has to be formally 'convicted', as he hasn't the sense to admit what's obvious. Sumbuddi (talk) 02:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That last bit is a violation of WP:NPA.--SKATER Speak. 02:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki libs actually used (and consistently uses) the abbreviation 'RVV', when reverting edits that he doesn't agree with, that do not actually constitute Wikipedia:Vandalism. This is insulting to the users he is reverting, in this case me. I'm not expecting three Hail Marys from him, but petty reverts and accusations of vandalism are not really a good way to return after a month's block. Sumbuddi (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That still gives you no right to attack his "sense".--SKATER Speak. 03:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPA says "Accusations about personal behavior [require] evidence". Which is what we're dealing with here, evidence of sockpuppeting, and specifically the willingness, post-block, to deny it. Which is not sensible, IMVHO. Sumbuddi (talk) 03:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by NW (Talk) 02:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions
  • The sock has been blocked indefinitely, and the master indefinitely as well. I'm willing to entertain an unblock request if Wiki libs promises to abide by the sockpuppetry policy in the future. NW (Talk) 03:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date November 27 2009, 11:27 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Occultaphenia

I am not one to complain, but I suspect sockpuppetry: these editors appear to be attempting to remove previously cited content in regard to the Pete Townsend page, regarding Townsend influencing Jimmy Page appears to have been in the article cited and uncontested. At first the content was removed without reason, all with a (Tag: references removed) in the comment for removal section, all within a quick suspicious amount of time, with most not having much editing outside the Townsend page, with only one (Scieberking) giving an ambigious reason claiming the link is "Malware" which doesn't sound right or legit reason and the link doesn't appear to be this incorrectly claimed classification. They all appear not to have a real log-in, other than the above mentioned. This removal continues, despite the source backing up the claim. I also notice that user 'Wiki Libs' appears to have been very protective of the Jimmy Page article, and appears to have a history of sockpupperty, though this may be less likely due to different editing reasons. I hope i have done the right thing, as I do not want to get into an 'edit war' so to speak, but these accounts point to sneakery to me. Please check just to make sure.


Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Occultaphenia (talk) 11:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions


Given the evidence that :115.167.84.73, 115.167.80.252, 115.167.84.109, 78.144.251.132 and Scieberking appear to have been proven socks of the same account, then shouldnt they be block? action should be taken. --Occultaphenia (talk) 08:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, sorry. I misread Brandon's comment above. As such, I have blocked all the IPs and the named account for a period of one week. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 02:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wiki_libs/Archive&oldid=328713394"