Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ethiopique
Ethiopique
- Ethiopique (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
22 April 2023
– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.
Suspected sockpuppets
The four mobile IP addresses were repeatedly adding unsourced box office information and analysis information to Clerks III. I filed a vandalism report noting that the same IP addresses were from a range that Ethiopique edits from. That entire range is blocked from editing Talk:2000 Mules. It was stated that the range was very large though and that if the edits weren't political in nature, it was unlikely to be Ethiopique. Editor, using the 2601:282:8100:32a0:59ed:25c7:2ee8:3fe0 IP began posting vandalism accusations on my talk page. After a quick back and forth, I made it known that the discussion wasn't welcome on my talk page and to take it to the article talk page instead. It was then that they switched to the 50.208.24.165 IP and made a post on my talk page, clearly indicating that it was the same person. When looking up that IP's contributions, it shows that they too have been blocked from the Talk:2000 Mules page, as has Ethiopique. So it looks to have been Ethiopique all along. NJZombie (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Comments by other users
- Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
- I’m not affiliated with the other apparently banned user he keeps WP:HOUNDING. Either he’s confused or trying to stir the pot with his row against me. Blaming us for his feud with him is not his right.
- For the record, I’m an employee of the Lyric theater in Colorado and some members of our cinema-lovers club do occasional editing from our public computers. I’m sure there is the occasional troll from here given these are public computers. However this zealous user taunted me into coming to his profile page to debate them only for him to change his mind without warning and revert my counter-argument out of spite. That’s his right. Then the other aforementioned allegedly-banned user that he was also taunting jumped in to apparently fan the flames.
- I have no desire to debate this editor anymore on his profile page, nor become entangled in his drama. I told him to resume his debate with me on the article’s forum page if he must.
- tl;dr version— I’m only responding because of his false accusations of vandalism and sockpupperty against our company IP address. Told him to file an SPI here rather than drag his drama to all these other places. Not sure this will go anywhere though. Blocking the IP range most of Colorado over a vanilla dispute over an inconsequential movie’s box office success seems excessive to me. For that reason I can’t imagine it’s worth the time and effort. But go for it guys if there are bigger fish to fry and I’m missing something here. IMHO it feels like this zealous editor is simply overreacting but what do I know? 2601:282:8100:32A0:95E1:D373:5241:8C19 (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, that must be it. Multiple patrons of the same theater are using their computers AND posting via mobile phone to Talk:2000 Mules and all being blocked. NJZombie (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
- Blocked the /64 range for 2 weeks. Th3 50. IP was partially blocked last December for 6 months, and they haven't done much, so rather than have to remember to reinstate the partial block if I block them sitewide, I'm taking no action. If they persist, though, feel free to reopen. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks Bbb23 but editor continues to make the same edit to Clerks III despite block and makes it known that it’s them. Can article get some level of protection as well? NJZombie (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)