Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DP1976

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DP1976 (talk | contribs) at 20:43, 28 December 2006 (→‎DP1976). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

DP1976

  • Code letter: A

Several 'new editors' started editing and acting in concert to sway the NPOV of a hotly contested article all at approx the same time. Their actions and writing style caused other editors to believe that they might be sockpuppets and/or meatpuppets. A case was filed on BryanFromPalantine.

On Dec 26, User DP1976 admitted that he was also User IP 209.221.240.193. HERE User 209.221.240.193 posted on Dec 14, HERE and subsequently, user BryanFromPalatine both edited said post 'claiming ownership' of the post by adding his name HERE and added additional text to this same post, again representing himself as 'BryanFromPalatine' HERE

One user/IP address is therefore posting as at least three different and distinct 'users' in an effort to illegally 'vote' and sway consensus. F.A.A.F.A. 07:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also this sockpuppet case; Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/BryanFromPalatine --BenBurch 07:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note • Removed private information posted. Please see the privacy policy. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 16:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As always, the BenBurch/FAAFA comedy team assumes the worst about anyone who disagrees with them. They ignore the possibility that two (or three, or more) real, live people might occasionally post from the same IP address. If they acknowledge that possibility, they then assume that they are all "Meatpuppets" rather than "sockpuppets." We are different people and we have differences of opinion, as evidenced by our different responses to the constant hostility/suspicion displayed by BenBurch/FAAFA, and as evidenced by the distinct posting histories at each IP address, prior to registration. Each IP address was used for a different period of time, to edit a completely different array of articles. - DP1976 19:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More evidence

Bryanfrompalatine confirmed sockpuppetry by 12ptHelvetica who he says posts as 208.250.137.2 "B. The home address of 12ptHelvetica is 208.250.137.2" see HERE On Dec 9 at 22:05 IP 208.250.137.2 added "I see that this issue has been the subject of much contention since I last looked in on November 16".... HERE 5 minutes later 12pt posted agreeing with the post from 208 (himself) "I agree" "Count my vote in the consensus" adding a 'vote' to a consensus tally. HERE - F.A.A.F.A. 03:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even more evidence

On 12/21 DP1976 edited the post of 12ptHelvetica adding content HERE - F.A.A.F.A. 03:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but isn't calling all of these examples "proof" a little presumptuous of you? "Proof" indicates that it's an undeniable fact that your accusations are true, which it is not. You are providing evidence, not proof. Jinxmchue 04:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed DP1976 and BryanFromPalatine. It is  Possible that 12ptHelvetica is the same. Dmcdevit·t 09:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous sockpuppet finding

There has been a finding that DP1976 is a sockpuppet of mine. This is an erroneous finding. It is a shared IP address belonging to not just DP1976 and I, but several thousand other employees of a corporation scattered at five sites throughout the Great Lakes region. [1]

1. Farmington Hills, Michigan;
2. South Bend, Indiana (where the server is located);
3. Hoffman Estates, Illinois;
4. Mt. Prospect, Illinois; and
5. Broadview, Illinois.

How do I get this ruling reconsidered or appealed? -- BryanFromPalatine 12:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: On 27 December BryanFromPalatine explained that the reason that he and DP1976 (and 12ptHelvetica?) shared the same IP was " These are three different people who know each other well enough to occasionally allow each other to use their computers." HERE
Please block these two confirmed sock accounts, and their related IP's as WP demands. - F.A.A.F.A. 13:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They also previously claimed not to know each other, and that the other editors could be any one of the 70,000 people living in Palatine, IL. This "safety in numbers" defense is wearing mighty thin here. --BenBurch 16:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just don't see it. Through cookies and other methods it is possible to distinguish between machines posting from the same IP address and conversely, identify the same machine posting from different addresses. While it is certainly true that shared IP's, especially amongst large corporations is common and can lead to confusion, expert analysis can look past IP address to determine identity. I suspect Wiki has some of that capability and has made the correct determination. Dman727 19:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note • Bryan appears to be the puppeteer, as that account is the older of the two. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 17:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That fits as these socks did not appear until after Bryan got a 24 Hr 3RR block that did not sit well with him. --BenBurch 18:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They also previously claimed not to know each other That's a lie. Through cookies and other methods it is possible to distinguish between machines posting from the same IP address ... These machines are programmed to block cookies. ... expert analysis can look past IP address to determine identity. I suspect Wiki has some of that capability and has made the correct determination. It's the wrong determination. Bryan and I are separate individuals. But since Ben and FAAFA are trying so hard to make me feel unwelcome, I'll leave. - DP1976 20:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]