Student7 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Specialcontributor75 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 66.176.103.169 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 72.17.253.46 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

The thread "Relation with Carlos the Jackal" at Talk:Hugo Chavez was started by user:Student7, and sees two IP addresses and the fresh account User:Specialcontributor75 (whose 4 edits to date are all to this page, on this theme) all with strikingly similar concerns. Specialcontributor75's sole edit prior to this thread [1] was on the same issue and same talk page, 2 days earlier. IP address 72...'s sole contribution [2] includes a reference to mediation, which is then picked up by Specialcontributor75 with his 4th edit [3]. I'm requesting investigation of possible socking based on this version of the page. Rd232 ^talk 17:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Defending yourself against claims.

The IPs are coming from different physical locations. I think it's more possible that we have canvassing/meatpuppetry going on here. MuZemike 07:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No action taken at this time. Even if this was meatpuppetry at the most, then I'm not seeing abuse of the editing process as a result of it. All users seem to be acting well-within the dispute resolution process, and no related changes to the articles has occurred since the discussion started. MuZemike 03:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Suspected sockpuppets

• TheTimesAreAChanging (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Stumink (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 88.104.219.76 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

All three accounts are tag-teaming the issue of adding material by a WP:FRINGE theorist to articles on historical genocides. If not a sockpuppet, then possibly meatpuppetry, at least all three on on the same script and it's a WP:FRINGE script.

1. On or about October 5, anon IP 88 begins editing, almost entirely articles with themes of genocide, denying, removing or challenging material that explains that these events are considered genocide. (Edit summaries in contribs history make position clear)
2. Beginning in early October about the 4th or so, Student7 also begins editing articles related to genocide, especially here with a pattern of minimizing, questioning or deleting material that claims certain actions against various people constitute "genocide." (Edit summaries give main thrust of posts)
3. Reverted frequently, the debate moves over to the talk page Pattern of tl;dr tendentious argumentation on talk page, particularly the inclusion of works by Lewy, all flying in the face of multiple editors who challenge this editor's views and explain that Lewy is a WP:FRINGE source and not RS.
4. On or about October 5, Anon IP 88 joins the fray at the Genocides in History article, (see above links) then on the talk page on Oct 7. Also argues for Lewy and against characterization of massacres as genocide
5. On October 6, the behavior of Anon IP 88 comes to the attention of WikiProject Indigneous Peoples of North America here
6. Alert due to this diff
7. Anon IP is blocked for edit-warring (see above link for discussion and comment by blocking admin)
8. On or about october 14, TheTimesAreAChanging joins the fray on the Genocides in History article and over the same author (Lewy)
9. Today (Oct 15), Student7 files an ANI on the editors attempting to keep out fringe material, claiming that they are owning articles and bullying Anon IP 88.
10. Times has proposed Stumink as a possible sock, with this link: here. Out of courtesy, I am adding this account as a possible.

Montanabw^(talk) 00:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

You sure are bullying editors who disagree with you, as this utterly baseless investigation demonstrates. Just so you know, the IP is obviously User:Stumink.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So file your own SPI or add them as a possible sock here. Anon IP 88 is clearly someone's sock. Montanabw^(talk) 18:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC) Follow up:Reviewing contribs, I see all of you have a common editing pattern on articles related to the Vietnam area and genocide issues. So I have added Stumink to the list. None of this is bullying. It is legitimate confrontation of people who use disruptive tactics to promote fringe theories. Montanabw^(talk) 18:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Disruptive tactics"? I haven't even made a single edit to Genocides in history in many, many months.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See here: Stumink has been blocked before for using multiple IP adresses, and all the IPs have the same writing style. Student7 and I have nothing to do with it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added that user also. All that said, pushing fringe viewpoints in the face of strong evidence and clear consensus that they are fringe constitutes disruption. You, to your credit, are confining your comments to the talk page. However, your pattern is very similar to that of Student7. Your tl;dr posts are akin to those of anon IP 88. You have edited in the same area with a similar POV to Stumink. If you are not a sock of Student7 or IP 88, you can provide verification to those who review such information. I am not the one to make that decision, I have simply filed in good faith based on what I view to be behavioral evidence. I bully no one, though I suppose that bullies don't feel very good to be getting a taste of one's own medicine. Montanabw^(talk) 18:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the burden of proof was on the Editor filing the investigation to show proof that two (or more users) accounts were the same user. How does one prove one isn't someone else? Really, I'd like to know, seriously, in case anyone ever accuses me of being someone else. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, given that we ordinary users don't have checkuser access, we simply present our case, which I did. IP 88 clearly was a sock of someone, and the common behavior made these three the most likely. I still think it possible that Studen7 is a sockmaster, possibly of Stumink and IP 88. There certainly was WP:MEATPUPPETry goint on if nothing more. Montanabw^(talk) 00:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello the IP 88 is indeed my one. I do not always login when I edit. My IP changes because I have a dynamic IP. Just to clarify I am not a sock of TheTimesAreAChanging and neither is IP 88. As well as this I am absolutely certain Niemti and TheTimesAreAChanging are not socks of each other. Regards. Stumink (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Fairly certain Stumink is neither of the other named editors, unless he only sleeps a few hours a day. Student7 and TheTimes are not clearly different editors, but the evidence provided does little more than show they have common interests. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Clerk note: Filer or others are free to reopen if they can put together a more convincing case. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]