Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/208.86.143.84

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:208.86.143.84

Suspected sock puppeteer

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

Suspected sock puppets

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

Report submission by

J. M. (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

This user uses different IP addresses to avoid the three-revert rule and therefore gain an unfair advantage of being able to revert my edits more often than I can revert his edits. This is obvious from the article history, which shows six things:

He added the same (deleted) text ([1]) under a new address ([2] and [3]).
After reverting my deletions twice under a new address ([4], [5]), he started doing exactly the same thing under yet another IP address, in less than 24 hours ([6]).
His previous IP address, 89.248.166.200, has already been blocked because it was believed to be an open proxy.
His last IP address (208.86.143.84) is used solely for reverting my edits in the Xvid article, which suggests that this is not a coincidence.
He keeps on using exactly the same tactics and rhetorics under all three addresses: he either does not explain his edits at all, or he only says my reverts are "unreasonable", "POV" or "senseless" in his edit description, again, without explaining why (which is the same thing as no explanation at all). Under all addresses, he keeps ignoring all my explanations why his reverts are wrong, in my edit summaries ([7], [8]) and also in my very lengthy and detailed explanation on the article Talk page, which, again, did not inspire any comment from him.
Good faith cannot be assumed—he repeatedly keeps adding a spam link to the Xvid article ([9], [10], [11]) despite my warnings that the link is inappropriate. The external link advertises an irrelevant and non-notable software product, and with an intentionally misleading title (which I explained on the article Talk page, too).

Comments

This might be a challenge for the user, if they are socking this way. The original IP address is in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. The second is in Burlington, MA (if it was Burlington, Ontario, it would be different). The third is located within Europe ... the Netherlands, if I'm not mistaken. Now, I'm not saying that proxying isn't possible, just slightly challenging. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely challenging. However, in the case of anonymous proxies, country/location is irrelevant. Anyone can use any proxy from any country, the public proxy lists on the internet are endless. And like I said, the first address has already been blocked by Wikipedia because it was believed to be an open proxy. Therefore, the location really does not matter at all. And because the next two addresses are used exactly in the same way as the first, blocked one (adding exactly the same text, in exactly the same style, violating multiple Wikipedia rules along the way), for me it is a clear indication of bad faith.—J. M. (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions: 208.86.143.84 is almost certainly a proxy, and I'm blocking it now. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]; 66.96.128.62 is almost certainly the same user, no comment on whether or not it's a proxy. Not blocking it right now only because he moved back to the 208.x.x.x address today, and there have been no edits from 66.x.x.x since. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest that, since the 66.96.128.62 account is part of an obvious sock team, it is reasonable to block it for a month. The 89.248 account is already blocked as a proxy. The Xvid article itself could be semi-protected for three months to discourage more socking. If these steps were taken, all three IPs would be under control and the report might be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not hearing objections, I went ahead and did the block of the 66.96 account, and semi-protected Xvid. Usage of open proxies suggests a bad actor, and two of the three IPs have been blocked as proxies. Close? EdJohnston (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]