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:Rex071404[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Rex071404 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Merecat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

216.153.214.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

216.153.214.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Clubjuggle ^T/C 05:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User appears to be using this IP sock on edits to Barack Obama-related articles to circumvent the sanctions imposed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 that stemmed from his actions surrounding his edits of John Kerry-related articles during the 2004 presidential election campaign cycle. Request a ruling to confirm this is an IP sock to confirm whether enforcement of the cited ArbCom ruling is appropriate. Suspect user has past history of sockpuppetry and behavior is consistent with previous related accounts.

If you look at Rex's blocklog it appears that he was never able to abide by the conditions within his arbcom ban and was ultimately indefinitely banned from editing on Wikipedia because of it. Like I said, if Rex/Merecat wants to come back and start editing on Wikipedia, the proper way is to request an unblocking on his talk page or, now that I think about it, contact the arbcom since he was ultimately indefinitely banned because of an arbcom ruling. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence section is probably a little off in that it only cites the arbcom ruling, it probably should also point out that Rex/Merecat coming back to edit is a violation of WP:BAN. Of particular interest are the evasion and enforcement and the reincarnation sections. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Both accounts have idiosyncrasies in common. Compare Rex071404's overall history of edits to the John Kerry talk page here[1] to 216.153.214.94's accumulated edits to the Barack Obama talk page here[2]. In both accounts, for example, most posts stand out as fully de-indented longish paragraphs. Wikidemo (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Comment by involved editor Considering the IP address mentioned in the ArbCom is virtually identical to the IP address that has edited the Obama related articles, I don't think there is much doubt that they are the same person. That being said, based on this IPs first few edits, which were to add a comment by Añoranza (talk · contribs) claiming they were being persecuted, I'd be interested to know which accounts the editor currently has active. It seems this editor throws accounts away and starts new ones when they start to collect blocks. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment by Shalom: This is nearly impossible to prove. Bobblehead contradicts himself in saying that the anonymous editor is sneaky enough to keep creating sockpuppets, yet (implicitly) naive enough to edit from the same IP he used two years ago. That in itself is remarkable: I have never kept the same IP address for more than a few months at a time. The contribs of this IP address show a break of almost two years from 2006 to 2008, where the linked Arbitration case is from 2004. Even with the similar IP addresses, I am not convinced this is the same person. Note also that Barack Obama is a different person than John Kerry, and Obama's article being high profile means that just about anyone may take an interest in it. So I'd recommend a wait-and-see approach: if this anonymous user really causes lots of trouble, block him on his own merits. Otherwise, let him be. Some diffs showing problematic behavior would be helpful. Yechiel (Shalom) 21:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe the slight difference in IP address and maintenance of the IP address for over 2 years is best answered by doing a whois on the IP address and reading a suggestion by Tbeaty on Merecat's page. The user is accessing the internet via a DSL internet service provider that uses stable IP addresses and the only way to get your IP address changed is via calling up the ISP and requesting that they issue a new IP address. Wild stab here, Shalom, but you don't use DSL? Creating new accounts on Wikipedia is extremely easy, getting your ISP to change your IP address multiple times is not. As far as the article being Barack Obama and not John Kerry, it should be noted that Rex was banned from all articles related to US politics and then indefinitely banned from Wikipedia for failing to abide by that ruling via the use of sockpuppets (including Merecat). If Rex/Merecat wishes to return to Wikipedia, the best course of action is to request an unblocking on one of their talk pages, not to jump feet first into a high profile article and accrue three NPA warnings within 24 hours. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a good response. I'll leave it to the discretion of others, but based on this evidence I had not yet seen, I'll support a block based on the likely violation of this ArbCom ruling by a likely sockpuppet. His response on his talk page, where he accuses others of a witch hunt but does not actually deny being Rex, is seriously problematic. Yechiel (Shalom) 22:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by EdJohnston The two bits that I find persuasive: 1. Close resemblance of the IP address 216.153.214.89 and .94, 2. very evasive response to the question on his talk page asking if he was Rex. Since the restrictions are not exactly a block, I think we should go ahead and impose them. EdJohnston (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by Kossack4Truth Speculation is not evidence. The comments by Shalom after "This is nearly impossible to prove" should be our guide here. Unless the IP address editor admits that he/she is Rex/Merecat, claiming that it's "likely" is insufficient. This account's edits have not been a problem at all. I would adopt a "wait and see" approach on this matter. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by Rlevse How is this a violation of the arb ruling? It's years old and as I read it, it had time limits specified by month or 'during the period of this ban'. If I missed something, let me know. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not a violation in and of itself, but the following four line items from the ArbCom ruling are what triggered my question:

• In view of his demonstrated deficiencies in engaging in and interpreting the results of research Rex071404 is required to cite a relevant authority, either by footnote or by comment embedded in the text, which supports every [disputed] edit he makes.
• This decision shall apply to User:216.153.214.94 and any other username or ip which Rex071404 may utilize.
• In the event Rex071404 makes an edit which cites no authority or an inappropriate authority it may be removed by any other user.
• In the event Rex071404 reverts any edit for any reason any administrator may impose a short ban (a hour to a day for first offenses and up to a week for repeat offenses).

--Clubjuggle ^T/C 13:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those four sections do not have an expiration date. It may be reasonable for the user to apply for a clarification / modification of the ruling considering how much time has passed, and if their behavior has been exemplary I don't see why Arbcom would not. But that is for Arbcom to decide. Moreover, given this IP editor's recent behavior (there are contentious edits, accusations of witch hunts, edit warring, and things that would be a violation of the Arbcom remedy), I would guess Arbcom would say things are not very promising. In fact, if they take up the matter they might be inclined to extend another provision that has not expired to cover the candidates of the new election:

• Edits (including those whose edit summaries offend) by Rex071404 to John Kerry and related articles or their talk pages which contain insulting language directed towards those he views as his political opponents may be removed by any user. Attempts by Rex071404 to revert such removals shall justify a short ban which may be imposed by any sysop.

In any event, if it is the same user I think they have violated the Arbcom sanctions so they are blockable either as a sock puppet or based on the ruling. Wikidemo (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Rex's blocklog it appears that he was never able to abide by the conditions within his arbcom ban and was ultimately indefinitely banned from editing on Wikipedia because of it. Like I said, if Rex/Merecat wants to come back and start editing on Wikipedia, the proper way is to request an unblocking on his talk page or, now that I think about it, contact the arbcom since he was ultimately indefinitely banned because of an arbcom ruling. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but all of that is meaningless if User:216.153.214.89 is not a sock, so doesn't that need to be determined first, or is it on ArbCom to make that determination? That's why I opened this report. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 17:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The evidence section is probably a little off in that it only cites the arbcom ruling, it probably should also point out that Rex/Merecat coming back to edit is a violation of WP:BAN. Of particular interest are the evasion and enforcement and the reincarnation sections. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Might WorkerBee74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) be one of the socks? That editor in particular, and others on the Barack Obama article, show some classic hallmarks. One difficult question is, sock puppets of who? Compare Rex071404's stunt here[3] (groups together perceived opponents, claims they have not refuted his logic, calls them obstructionists, and gives them 24 hours to "prove" his is wrong or else he will edit war against consensus) with WorkerBee74's edit here[4] (groups together perceived opponents, claims their opposition is without evidence, gives them one day to disprove his argument "on the merits" or else he will edit war against consensus). They both accuse their opponents of obstruction, and make grandstanding threats to ignore consensus on a date certain unless proven wrong because theirs is the right position. These are the only two times I've ever seen this specific tactic on Wikipedia. Another - both are fond of the word "merit" and "merits? Lately WB74 has been tag teaming 216.153.214.89 on the Obama talk page to make some personal attacks on people for pursuing sock puppet suspicions[5][6][7] to the point where their contributions seem interchangeable. I don't know if that is enough to add WB74 to this list, and WB74 is already on one or two other SSP reports, so I'll just bring this up here. Some guidance would be helpful. I'm concerned that we may need to merge together or consider all of the sockpuppet reports on the Obama article so we don't miss any connections. Wikidemo (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by submitter: I've submitted a RFCU, though I suspect this won't be conclusive. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 17:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I see that here: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/216.153.214.89. Wikidemo (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Insufficient evidence to block. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---