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.
Since 4 December, all nine of these IPs have been editing Wisconsin census-designated place (CDP) articles, plus articles and templates referring to or classifying them against the standard for CDPs in Wisconsin, or discussions on user talk pages about others of the nine IP. While no IP address has violated 3RR, if these nine — or even only the seven beginning with 12. — are the same human, there's a plain 3RR violation here. 68. and 69. are currently under a 24-hour block: I blocked 69. after s/he made several personal attacks on RFD's and my talk pages, even restoring them when they were reverted; meanwhile, in this edit, 68. claims to be 69. The person with these two IPs has claimed to be a different person from whoever is using 12.76.152.161. However, it should be noted that all nine of these have begun editing since 4 December: some have never edited before, while the rest have not edited for months. With the exception of two Oklahoma-related edits (both of which were to articles I had just edited), all of these edits since 4 December have been Wisconsin-related or CDP-related or both.
Aside from the articles they've edited, 69. and several of the 12. series have both engaged in personal attacks ([1] and [2]), and both have frequently blanked their own talk pages: here by 69., while six of the eight edits by 12.76.152.12 and 12.76.155.214 have been to blank talk pages of the 12.-series IPs.
One final point: to my knowledge, there haven't been any disputes or even any discussion of CDPs in Wisconsin for the past several months, until this came up in the last few days. I'm not heavily involved in Wisconsin geography (RFD and Royalbroil are more informed on this), but I've not seen any disputes in the histories of any of the Wisconsin CDP articles that I've looked at over the last few days.
I will be notifying three registered users of this case, none of whom are at all related to the IPs: RFD, who has been the subject of some personal attacks and has been deeply involved in the actual content edits that they've made; Royalbroil, who has become involved primarily with opposing recent personal attacks; and Bkonrad, whom one of the IPs asked for help, but has not at all done anything wrong.
Comments
I do lots of editing with the WikiProject Wisconsin.Being born and raised in Wisconsin, I am very familiar with the State including the government and the political subdivisions.A few days ago an anon editor started to revert changes to the Wisconsin related CDP articles.I responded by telling this edit he/she should go to the talk pages/edit summary of the articles.Instead this editor reverted my edits saying that I gave no reasons for the edits I made.I also knew this anon editor followed myself when I edited the Bishop Loras Watters article and when I left a messege on User Dual Freq's talk page about the 1933 WWisconsin Milk Strike article.
It has been distress for myself not knowing when this anon editor would come up.In fact I reverted an edit that this anon editor made in the Daniel Brandenstein article and got one of the registered editors wondering what was going on.For that one I did apologized to that registered editor.
One more comment-at WikiProject Wisconsin we reached the consensus in the preparing of the Wisconsin county articles and templetes that they were to be rank as:cities,villages,towns,census-designated places and then unincorporated communities and in my own edits I try to follow this consensus that was reached at WikiProject Wisconsin.Finally as I told Nyttend-I feel very strongly that all editors of Wikipedia should be require to be register by opening accounts.It gets very stress when you have one anon editor using several IP numbers who does not want nor is willing to register with Wikipedia with an account who pops up and engages in personal attacks and you do not know who this person is.Thank you-RFD (talk) 01:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please state whether you think that these IP addresses represent a single person or not? Nyttend (talk) 03:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly the same person is editing the addresses in the 12.x IP range because some have reverted warnings to other IP addresses. Both 68/69.x IP addresses are edits from the same editor, but the 12.x and 68/69.x edits might not have the same editor. I got involved when the 68.x editor placed a personal attack on User:RFD's talk page. The message had a list of things that kindergartners need to do followed by the insult "GROW UP!" [3]. The editor won't discuss anything or work towards building consensus. The editor has been around Wikipedia for a while, because s/he left the message "I'll bet that's the first time in history that someone characterized Fulghum's wonderful advice as an attack." [4] on my talk page.
Wisconsin CDPs and unincorporated communities (UC) have separate categories and both editors seem to be in strong disagreement with this consensus. There needs to be a separation and distinction between CDP and UC. It may be true that every CDP is an unincorporated community, but I'm certain that not every unincorporated community is a CDP. Royalbroil 04:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
I have a dynamic IP, and because of that I’m being accused of being a sockpuppet. I have absolutely no control over how my IP appears - my ISP determines that. I am definitely not 69.120.182.161 because my IP never begins with 69. FWIW, Nyttend filed a sockpuppet charge after I presented indisputable evidence that he and RFD were wrong about the status and “rank” of census-designated places (CDPs). This appears to be clear retaliation. Plus, Nyttend recruited his buddy, RFD, to weigh in on the matter. RFD is so biased that he can’t distinguish between my CDP comments and the very sound edits I’ve made. The poor fellow is obviously so blown away by the fact that someone knowledgeable has contradicted him that he’s babbling unintelligibly. Even User:Royalbroil, who I respect a lot more than the other two, cannot distinguish the issue that is supposed to be addressed on this page: Is Nyttend’s accusation of sock puppetry true? This is hardly a fair, neutral, or objective weighing of the facts. It’s a brute force “consensus” perpetrated by a good ol’ boys network. I’m not like some editors who make trivial, technical changes and reverts. I’ve made a lot of constructive and meaningful contributions to WP. Check my recent addition to Roxbury, Wisconsin for just one example.
"Nothing is more revolting than the majority; for it consists of few vigorous predecessors, of knaves who accommodate themselves, of weak people who assimilate themselves, and the mass that toddles after them without knowing in the least what it wants."
"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible."
Question to 12.76.152.230-There is any reason why you yourself am not register with Wikipedia with an account?Thank you-RFD (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you put that in English, please? 12.76.155.139 (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Editing anonymously is a perfectly legitimate way of contributing to Wikipedia. There is no reason you should be bullying me into creating an account.
Personally, I think that passing an English writing and grammar test should be one criterion for being a WP editor. Those who can't string together words to form complete, intelligible sentences shouldn't be allowed to edit.12.76.129.243 (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — please leave all further notes below here
There are only three relevant questions in this case: are 68/69 the same person; are the 12-series the same person; and is the 12-series the same person as 68/69. Given that 68 claimed to be 69, and given that the 12-series notes that the 12-series is the same person, we only need to address one more question here: are 68/69 and the 12-series the same person? Let's leave off the previous conversations: they've only a little bit looked at this question. Nyttend (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay-I look at the Roxbury, Wisconsin article and made some minor changes-space/bullet/Black Hawk War templete.I look at the history of Roxbury, Wisconsin and 12.76.152.230's contributions to the Roxbury, Wisconsin article. I noticed an entry at 6:27 for December 7, 2008 12.76.154.63 and 12.76.154.63 did blanket the various warnings. A few minutes later 12.76.152.230 came on the scene with the edits to the Roxbury, Wisconsin article. I am not sure if I am answering this question or not but I feel the edits in the Roxbury, Wisconsin article today-12.76.154.63/12.76.152.230 were of the same individual.Thank you-RFD (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we have a statement from the 12-series that it's the same person; the question is whether the 12-series and 68/69 are the same person. Nyttend (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is this all about? The day before yesterday I got accused of being someone I’m not, and my protestations to the contrary, was blocked by Nyttend. Today I’m accused of being a sockpuppet. This is absurd! I have only one computer and only one connection to the Internet. How can I be a sockpuppet? I checked some of the edits of the other IPs I’m accused of being, and it turns out that I apparently agreed with something one of those IPs said, so now I’m stuck in the middle of a dispute that Nyttend and RFD are involved in with someone else. Please leave me out of your silly edit war!69.120.182.161 (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You were blocked for personal attacks, as noted above; and although you only have one Internet connection (something I'm not questioning here), your computer plainly used at least two IPs — whether or not you are the same person operating the 12.-series. Furthermore, if you want to dissociate yourself from the 12.-series, you might want to refrain from the derogatory comments, such as "silly edit war", that both 69. and the 12.-series have been making. Nyttend (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
A dynamic IP doesn’t qualify as a sockpuppet, especially when the only issue is one of disagreement with other editors. No registered user has weighed in on this except those involved in the dispute. The IP has made many good edits. There’s no point in a rangeblock. Let it rest.
Daniel Case (talk) 04:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.28.1 (talk) [reply]
What we have here is a user who is allowed to edit anonymously, who will show up on different IPs through no fault of their own. For our purposes, the IPs on this report look like they might be treated as the same editor (I'd want to double check before applying any blocks.). If we do that, and the editor's unified behavior merits a block, one can be applied. I am not going to block them now because anything that happened is already stale, and they appear to be acting in good faith. They aren't trying to use multiple accounts. That's just a consequence of how they access the Internet. Please let me or any other administrator know if any of these IPs engage in disruptive behavior, individually or collectively, and provide a link to this page. JehochmanTalk 02:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]