Misplaced Pages

:Sockpuppet investigations/The Discoverer: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:00, 6 October 2013 editZanhe (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers132,020 edits reply← Previous edit Revision as of 02:05, 7 October 2013 edit undoDarkwind (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users42,095 edits →Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments: replyNext edit →
Line 43: Line 43:
::::::Thank you Darkwind. I reiterate that I was not involved in the IP edits of the past month. I am not involved in sock puppetry and I take strong exception to Zanhe repeatedly referring to me as a sockpuppeteer. The fact that I do not wish to be linked to a location does not imply that I am really linked to that location or to those IPs. I'm not an expert in this, but what I understand from the is that the ISP has the IP range '117.192.0.0 - 117.207.255.255'. If I am not mistaken, this means that it has 256 x 256 x 15 = 983040, thats almost a million IP addresses. Further, the dispute had already been discussed at several places like noticeboard and categories for discussion, and the articles have significant number of views, so they are not necessarily obscure. ] (]) 17:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC) ::::::Thank you Darkwind. I reiterate that I was not involved in the IP edits of the past month. I am not involved in sock puppetry and I take strong exception to Zanhe repeatedly referring to me as a sockpuppeteer. The fact that I do not wish to be linked to a location does not imply that I am really linked to that location or to those IPs. I'm not an expert in this, but what I understand from the is that the ISP has the IP range '117.192.0.0 - 117.207.255.255'. If I am not mistaken, this means that it has 256 x 256 x 15 = 983040, thats almost a million IP addresses. Further, the dispute had already been discussed at several places like noticeboard and categories for discussion, and the articles have significant number of views, so they are not necessarily obscure. ] (]) 17:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
{{od}} You're obscuring the matter with your spurious math. It's irrelevant that the ISP has a million IP's, what matters is that all three IP's from that ISP involved in the issue come from the same subnet of 117.195.96.0/19, with only about 8000 IP's that are likely dynamically assigned to the same neighbourhood (it's no coincidence that all three IP's geolocate to Pune, Maharashtra, India). The chance that three unrelated people from the same small subnet/neighbourhood removed warning messages from The Discoverer's talk page, and canvassed on the Indian noticeboard for a content dispute involving only The Discoverer and myself, is infinitesimal. -] (]) 19:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC) {{od}} You're obscuring the matter with your spurious math. It's irrelevant that the ISP has a million IP's, what matters is that all three IP's from that ISP involved in the issue come from the same subnet of 117.195.96.0/19, with only about 8000 IP's that are likely dynamically assigned to the same neighbourhood (it's no coincidence that all three IP's geolocate to Pune, Maharashtra, India). The chance that three unrelated people from the same small subnet/neighbourhood removed warning messages from The Discoverer's talk page, and canvassed on the Indian noticeboard for a content dispute involving only The Discoverer and myself, is infinitesimal. -] (]) 19:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
:While I agree that it's not a terribly likely coincidence, it is not a zero chance either. It is especially important to be mindful of the concept we call AGF, which in these investigative processes could be restated "innocent until proven guilty". If he ''did'' do it, I'm sure he'd never do it again, given that he's seen how swiftly the community can react to that behavior, especially if one is involved in a dispute. If he ''didn't'', then he'll be relieved to know that we ''do not jump to conclusions'' when suspicious behavior is discovered.

:At any rate, I've said about all I can regarding my evaluation of the evidence in this case, and I doubt I'll have much more to add. As I've said if another admin comes to a different conclusion, I won't mind if they take a different action than I. &mdash;] (]) 02:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. --> ----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. -->

Revision as of 02:05, 7 October 2013

The Discoverer

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

For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/The Discoverer/Archive.


22 September 2013

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.

Suspected sockpuppets


For several weeks I've been involved in a content dispute with User:The Discoverer regarding a number of articles related to the Sino-Indian border dispute. There have already been discussions on the Administrators' noticeboard, on CfD, and on Talk:Lanak Pass. Yesterday I found out that the IP 117.195.122.22 (geolocates to Pune, India) was canvassing on the Indian noticeboard , without notifying the Chinese noticeboard. This IP had no previous edit history, but displayed comprehensive knowledge of the dispute which involves a large number of newly-created, obscure articles.

After further investigation, I found that two similar IP's (117.195.96.62 and 117.195.99.85) edited User talk:The Discoverer a few years ago, repeatedly removing warnings and other unfavourable messages that were posted on The Discoverer's talk page (diffs: ). This edit by 117.195.99.85 was particularly revealing, with an edit summary that says "Article in question has been deleted and user has read the warnings", speaking as if on behalf of User:The Discoverer.

I believe the evidence above is sufficient to prove that 117.195.122.22 is an IP sock of User:The Discoverer, who was deliberately attempting to hide his identity when engaging in inappropriate canvassing. Zanhe (talk) 23:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

I was not involved in the IP edits of the Indian noticeboard that Zanhe is referring to.The Discoverer (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

  • So it was pure coincidence that IP's from the same 117.195.x.x network canvassed on the Indian noticeboard and removed warning messages from your personal talk page? -Zanhe (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Request to the closer: For privacy reasons, where possible, please could you delete references to the two IPs that edited User talk:The Discoverer? These edits are 5 years old, non-controversial, and only serve in this discussion to attempt to link an account to a geographical location. Thanks, The Discoverer (talk) 05:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

How are they non-controversial? The IP's repeatedly deleted warning messages from your talk page and were reverted by other editors. -Zanhe (talk) 06:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Clerk declined - CUs cannot publicly connect IPs to accounts, which fulfilling this CU request would do. Use behavior. Rschen7754 01:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • information Administrator note It is vaguely duck-shaped, but not clear enough, and the editor interaction tools don't show anything. However, I did block the 210.* IP for 6 months as a suspected open proxy. Closing case. —Darkwind (talk) 05:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • The 210.* IP may be vaguely duck-shaped, but the 117.195.* IP's are clearly sockpuppets of The Discoverer. How else do you explain that the similar IP's repeatedly removed warning messages from his talk page AND canvassed on the Indian noticeboard for an issue involving only The Discoverer and myself? Of course the editor interaction tools won't show anything: he used the IP only to canvass, not to edit the disputed pages. But his request to delete the IP edits for "privacy reasons" above pretty much admits that the 117.195.* IP's are his socks. -Zanhe (talk) 07:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • The 117.195.96.* and 117.195.99.* IPs have not edited Misplaced Pages in nearly five years. There's no point in issuing a block on those individually since it's highly unlikely those IPs will be reassigned to him in the near term. I could range block that whole set of IP's, but it would have to be 117.195.96.0/19 to get all three, which is 8192 hosts -- not worth the disruption. His request above is perfectly reasonable -- if one accidentally edits logged-out, the IP address information is eligible for oversight (see criterion #1).
As for 117.195.122.22, the only evidence you provided was that the IP was canvassing at WT:INB. Given the fact that this IP range apparently represents a fairly common Indian ISP, it is entirely possible this behavior is a coincidence. The only way to tell for sure would be to CheckUser, and that's already been declined. Unless you have any additional diffs to provide showing more concrete behavior, I do not see that there is enough evidence to conclude that this is sockpuppetry. —Darkwind (talk) 07:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
@Darkwind: 117.195.96.62 and 117.195.99.85 removed warning messages from The Discoverer's talk page, while 117.195.122.22 canvassed on the Indian noticeboard on an issue involving nobody but The Discoverer and myself. All three similar IP's geolocate to Pune, India. In a country of a billion people with millions of IP addresses, what are the odds that this all happened by chance? I'm not seeking to get the IP's blocked, as they're obviously dynamically assigned, but the puppet master (The Discoverer) needs to be reprimanded for his underhanded behaviour. -Zanhe (talk) 08:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
FYI, the ping notification system doesn't work in the Misplaced Pages: namespace (it only works on *talk: pages). Anyway, I would be happy to admonish The Discoverer (t c) regarding the possibility he's abused the ability to edit anonymously. However, especially given that he has a clean block log and has a relatively clean noticeboard history (the only two threads being one for copyright issues and one that you brought in re. this same dispute), I am extremely reluctant to issue a block or take any other action that could be seen as punitive on such scant evidence. If the SPI clerk/CU who comes by to archive the case disagrees with me, they will take whatever action they feel is necessary or continue the discussion. —Darkwind (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Darkwind. I reiterate that I was not involved in the IP edits of the past month. I am not involved in sock puppetry and I take strong exception to Zanhe repeatedly referring to me as a sockpuppeteer. The fact that I do not wish to be linked to a location does not imply that I am really linked to that location or to those IPs. I'm not an expert in this, but what I understand from the WHOIS tool is that the ISP has the IP range '117.192.0.0 - 117.207.255.255'. If I am not mistaken, this means that it has 256 x 256 x 15 = 983040, thats almost a million IP addresses. Further, the dispute had already been discussed at several places like noticeboard and categories for discussion, and the articles have significant number of views, so they are not necessarily obscure. The Discoverer (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

You're obscuring the matter with your spurious math. It's irrelevant that the ISP has a million IP's, what matters is that all three IP's from that ISP involved in the issue come from the same subnet of 117.195.96.0/19, with only about 8000 IP's that are likely dynamically assigned to the same neighbourhood (it's no coincidence that all three IP's geolocate to Pune, Maharashtra, India). The chance that three unrelated people from the same small subnet/neighbourhood removed warning messages from The Discoverer's talk page, and canvassed on the Indian noticeboard for a content dispute involving only The Discoverer and myself, is infinitesimal. -Zanhe (talk) 19:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

While I agree that it's not a terribly likely coincidence, it is not a zero chance either. It is especially important to be mindful of the concept we call AGF, which in these investigative processes could be restated "innocent until proven guilty". If he did do it, I'm sure he'd never do it again, given that he's seen how swiftly the community can react to that behavior, especially if one is involved in a dispute. If he didn't, then he'll be relieved to know that we do not jump to conclusions when suspicious behavior is discovered.
At any rate, I've said about all I can regarding my evaluation of the evidence in this case, and I doubt I'll have much more to add. As I've said if another admin comes to a different conclusion, I won't mind if they take a different action than I. —Darkwind (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Categories:
Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/The Discoverer: Difference between revisions Add topic