Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Akuri/Archive

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Akuri

Akuri (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
25 May 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Blocked user has returned to editing with self-identified IP to resume the same tired SPA crusade. ([1] [2] [3] )

Besides the ip block it would be useful to check for other socks and sleepers in the 110.32 IP ranges. This user knows continuing to edit is unacceptable, and experience has shown block evading puppets tend to be doggedly persistent stirring up chaos in the Race/Intelligence arena. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks-any sleeper accounts in the 110.32.xxx.xxx range if poss. The suspected socks page lists the specific 110.32.x's identified so far. Of the other IPs on that page, I believe the 101.xxx.xxx's are currently covered by a range block and the remaining assorted IP's were open proxies I believe. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but thought an exception may apply here given the user self-disclosed the IPs on their user page. Professor marginalia (talk) 02:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Additional information needed - Do you mean more sleeper accounts, or other IPs that are the same editor? If it's the former then we can have a sleeper check done; if it's the latter I could see a CU doing a check on the IP or range, but something like that would have to be handled outside SPI. Rschen7754 23:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk declined - no evidence that there are sleeper accounts out there. As far as IPs, it seems to be an entire range, and it's probably too large to block. CUs will not connect IPs to accounts except in cases of extreme abuse. Due to the arb-related issue, this might count as "extreme abuse" but generally something like that should not be handled in a public venue like SPI, but referred to one of the CUs in private. Rschen7754 02:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that does resolve the privacy issue, but with no history of other accounts I don't see what a CU on such a wide range would do. CUs should feel free to override me on this one if they see fit, but I don't think that a doing a CU would be helpful. --Rschen7754 02:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked into this a bit and just semi-protected the page. Aside from that, there is not that much to do here unfortunately. NW (Talk) 02:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing. Rschen7754 02:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
16 June 2013
Suspected sockpuppets



Akuri was blocked as a suspected sock puppet but no other account was identified. Akuri has claimed to use the IP ranges 110.32.* and 101.0.* Several of these are in a category (whether they would be sock puppets is debatable as some were used before the account was created) - ranges are probably 110.32.128.0/19, 110.32.192.0/20, 101.0.71.0/27 and 101.0.79.0/27), but an IP in one of the ranges, 110.32.199.135 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), blocked for evading the block of Akuri, and the IP[4] and Akuri[5] claimed to be two different people.

On User talk:Akuri, User:Salvio giuliano mentions that there's an IP in the original range used by Akuri as tagged as a sock of a banned user, but apparently the accounts can't be linked as there is an IP tagged as a sock of that user (which seems inconsistent with the usual process). When I looked at the history of the user spaces of the ranges mentioned by Akuri, only two pages had any mention of checkuser or sock and both were clearly unrelated (one was one of two IPs adding similar nonsense to a page, the other was block evasion of a vandalism-only account). Either the edit was deleted (possibly because of mistaken identity) or it was another range.

There has been a suggestion that "it is almost certain that Akuri is a sockpuppet of Captain Occam".[6] Captain Occam (talk · contribs) is (or was, in 2011) based in a different continent from the IPs mentioned by Akuri (which have been editing in this area since 2010, for example Special:Contributions/110.32.131.13), and no IPs are tagged as his socks.

I suspect (but I'm not certain) that Akuri is a sock puppet, but not of all these users (possibly an entirely different user) and without checkuser it's probably impossible to say which. It should still be possible (at least until next week) to check Akuri with Captain Occam, as well as 110.32.199.135, and the unidentified banned user, and at least confirm whether the other range is consistent with the location of either Captain Occam or 110.32, as editors are assuming that these are all the same user despite the various indications that they are not; it would be wrong for a user (which may be either Captain Occam, Akuri or the IP) to be blocked (or have unblock requests declined) just because someone's created a sockpuppet to make similar edits. Peter James (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the checks, checkusers haven't been able to confirm whether the account is a sockpuppet of a user who is blocked or subject to editing restrictions, and maybe the tagged IP is a proxy, or was mistakenly identified as another user. There may be a block only on an IP or old account the user no longer has access to, and that block may have expired - how would this be appealed? The reason for the block (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=555436165) is also inaccurate: Akuri has also edited in other areas of Wikipedia. Maybe the block can be replaced by restrictions on editing logged out or in areas where disruption is likely based on the history of the account and IP edits. Peter James (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Check declined by a checkuser. This is what we call beating a dead horse. If there was something to find, it would've turned up in one of the nineteen checks carried out by the four different checkusers that have reviewed the data. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 09:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

01 July 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

User:DavidJac123 was blocked for edit-warring on Race Differences in Intelligence (book), attempting to add copious amounts of content against consensus. On the talk page discussion, they appear to be tag-teaming with several IPs, who have acknowledged that they are one and the same person (this is the first edit by that particular IP). All the IPs have only been involved with this one content page. DavidJac has edited three content pages, but has more edits here than anywhere else.

Diffs of tag teaming; 1 2 3 4

There are several more instances; essentially, the entire talk page history for the past three days or so. This is the only page involved, so looking at the history should be fairly easy. I can supply more diffs, if needed.

I know that privacy policy dictates no CU in this case; but I believe the behavioural evidence is strong enough for a set of blocks or warnings. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC) Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

DavidJac123 apparently used the IPs 87.57.35.210 and 130.225.198.129 before he registered an account. Both of these IPs edit warred to add the same material that DavidJac123 later tried to add.

I don't think my own behavior has been that similar to him and his IPs. I've participated in the dispute on the talk page, but I haven't tried to restore the material in the article itself, because I know consensus doesn't support it (yet). I also asked DavidJac123 here to stop edit warring. 101.0.94.153 (talk) 07:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Normally try to avoid accusing people of sockpuppetry unless there is very strong evidence to support it, while the named account has more than just edits to the book article, the IPs have been quacking quite loudly. All have nearly identical edits and appear to be edit warring over that same book article.
As for the named user, the only way to know for sure there is for a clerk to endorse and a checkuser to gain the proof but there are certainly some feathers, a bill and webbed feet. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 04:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This case probably relates to Akuri (talk · contribs) (indeffed) who had a strong interest in R&I issues. Akuri used 101.0.x.x IPs as can be seen by searching User talk:Akuri for "101.0"; also confirmed by this diff. It is very likely that those IPs are from PureVPN which provides a cheap service allowing users to edit as if they were at those IPs, when in fact the user could be anywhere in the world. That was raised at ANI Feb 2013 (see my comment "PureVPN Australian server is at 101.0.71.2, and that makes it very likely that all the 101.0.71.* IPs are used by PureVPN"). Note that 101.0.71.29 (listed above) has almost certainly been used by no one other than Akuri as their contributions are intermingled with those of 101.0.x.x relating to Akuri's genesis. Johnuniq (talk) 04:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Solarra: I was under the impression that privacy policy did not allow a user to be linked to an IP, so preventing a checkuser being run on the set I've given above. I might well be wrong, though. A CU is hardly required to establish the link between the IPs, seeing as they have pretty much acknowledged it themselves. Johnuniq, thanks for bringing that to my attention; this is not an area I typically edit, so I was unaware of that character. Although having looked him up, it seems as though they were also a sock, of an unknown master.....Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Vanamonde93: My mistake, only a handful of posts here at SPI, striked the checkuser comment. You are right though, the evidence speaks for itself. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 05:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right that I'm the same person as Akuri. But before you block all my IPs as socks of that user, please listen to what I have to say, because there's an underlying error here that you don't have to propagate.
All of the IP addresses I've edited from are listed here. There are two different IP ranges in the same area, 101.0.* and 110.32.*. (The other IP addresses are proxies.) Everyone has always understood that both the 101.0* and the 110.0.* range are me. I don't know why the 101.0* range looks like it's a VPN, but no one ever argued that about the 110.32.* range. I could not actually be "anywhere in the world" unless all of the 110.32.* IPs are proxies also.
Shortly before I registered an account, my IP range was blocked for an unrelated reason (see the discussion at user talk:101.0.71.29), so after that I had to edit from proxies. Then I got into a dispute with user:Mathsci, who was at the same time in a dispute with several sockmasters. When someone ran a checkuser on the Akuri account in May 2013, and saw that all of its recent edits had been from proxies (without being being aware of why I had to do this), they came to the conclusion that I must therefore be one of those sockmasters. The way that my account was blocked without carefully examining my history has made me into a poster child for admin sloppiness at the Wikipediocracy forum: [7] [8]
I don't care if Akuri is ever unblocked. I never wanted to use an account anyway. But I edited as IPs for more than a year before I had an account, and back then nobody thought I was a sock. I don't think the way I was forced to edit from proxies for a while, and was therefore assumed to be as a sock, should mean that I can't post anonymously from either of my default IP ranges like I was doing originally. 101.0.94.156 (talk) 05:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I remember, there were claims that 101.x.x.x could not register an account and operate from a normal computer that connected directly to Wikipedia without using a VPN to avoid scrutiny. No reason was given. WP:ARBR&I topics have been relatively quiet for a while, but in the past they were a battleground between SPA POV pushers and established editors, and the noise from R&I disputes raging on noticeboards was appalling. There must be no accommodation with IP-hoppers who use, or have used, proxies to avoid scrutiny. Johnuniq (talk) 06:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, jumping IPs like a flea on a hot brick to avoid scrutiny and cause general mischief is unacceptable, and I believe there is a myriad of Wikipedia policies in place to prevent it. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 06:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not actually trying to avoid scrutiny. While my default IP range was covered by a rangeblock, I was editing from proxies because I had no other choice, and my regular IP address automatically changes every hour or so. I don't have control of these things. I could register a new account to make my edits easier to track, but it would be socking if I were use a different account while Akuri is blocked. I know that my situation makes it difficult for me to edit in accordance with Wikipedia's policies, but please understand that I'm doing the best I can. 101.0.94.152 (talk) 08:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)In any case, I reported the user and the set of IPs because of their behavior at a single page, without prior knowledge of this case, and I believe the behavior on this page alone is block worthy. If the reviewing admin agrees with me, then the rest of their behavior, and any supposed extenuating circumstances, won't matter overmuch. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • behaviorally User:DavidJac123 and IP 101 seem unlikely to be socks (unless the master is a very good actor). However, the IP101 self admitted evasion of their block is something that should be addressed. The Block is of the USER and so editing whether via the IP or a new account is unacceptable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted here, Future Perfect at Sunrise was the administrator who did the original rangeblock of my IPs before I had an account, which was what forced me to start using proxies (and subsequently caused checkusers to assume Akuri must be someone's sock). Can this SPI be examined by at least one administrator who's uninvolved? 82.72.176.118 (talk) 13:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is what appears to be relevant history: T. Canens originally did a range block covering about 17,000 IPs. T. Canens does not appear to have responded to the question as who was the sockmaster that he was trying to block with the huge range block. Akuri is prohibited from editing while logged out and the range block was kept in place. So, it forces anyone within that range to use proxies to access their accounts. Future Perfect at Sunrise has a problematic history in dealing with this topic area, and he just tried to censor the comment above by the IP editor which criticizes his involvement. I will request more eyes from AN. Cla68 (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fut.Perf.; since I cannot request a CU in this case, and we are relying on behaviour, what is your opinion of the named user? TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom, I agree that a priori DavidJac does not look the same as the IPs; but if you look at the circumstantial evidence, such as them both appearing at the same time and editing the one page, etc....Also, if this is Akuri, then the IP has a long history of block-evasion, and plenty of time to hone strategies for such. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:DavidJac123

DavidJac123 just made this edit which seems to acknowledge that DavidJac123 is Akuri. The edit, presumably inadvertently, removed some text. I have therefore reverted their edit, but am including the comment below mine. Johnuniq (talk) 11:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I choose to make an account so i could actively be in the debate instead of using some IP address. I choose to that when i found out i was pretty active in the debate, so thought the best decision was to make an account.DavidJac123 (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dude! I am not Akuri. I said made the account DavidJac123 to be active in the debate. I am NOT Akuri. You misunderstood my comment. I am sorry. DavidJac123 (talk) 11:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I really have to defend myself, here cause you guys really got soemthing mixed up. I did not say I am Akuri. Cause i am not, I admitted that i used my own IP adress prior to having this account DavidJac123, but choose to make account DavidJAc123, cause i wanted to be part of the debate instead of some random IP adress. I am not Akuri, sorry for the confusion. Furthermore my primary interest is not race and intelligence. Actually that is tax systems. I am the main creator of pages on taxation in italy and portugal - you are welcome to check that. DavidJac123 (talk) 11:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I said "seems to acknowledge" because the comments weren't clear. This was my reasoning:
By editing the comment from 101.0.94.152, I assumed that DavidJac123 was acknowleding they were that IP, and that IP appears to have acknowledged they are Akuri. Perhaps the edit was from an old version of this page, which might explain how text was removed. I don't want to take any more time at the moment to form a conclusion, but the inference seemed reasonable, although there may be some other explanation. Johnuniq (talk) 11:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Johnuniq: yes, this seems to have been a technical mistake; DavidJac123 accidentally edited based on an old edit [9], which accidentally made it look as if he changed other people's comments. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

87.57.35.210 is me before i got an account. The other one aint me, i never edited anything about horse racing. Only other thing I have edited is pages about tax systems. That is probably taxation in portugal and taxation in italy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidJac123 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Comment moved here from admin section by Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay? So... Okay I am confused now.. What does the mean then?DavidJac123 (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at Special:Contributions/DavidJac123 I would say there is no reason to think they are related to Akuri or the 101.0.x.x IPs. DavidJac123 has been notified of WP:ARBR&I and should understand that R&I has been an extremely contentious topic at Wikipedia—proposed changes must be discussed fully at the article talk page. My "seems to acknowledge" above was an understandable but invalid inference based on an edit that accidentally altered other text. Welcome to Wikipedia! Johnuniq (talk) 02:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

IP editor has admitted he is indef-blocked user Akuri (talk · contribs). No further checks necessary, just treat any further edits from this range as block-evasion and roll back. Can a clerk perhaps merge this report into the Akuri archive? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I have range-blocked the two */24 ranges he's mostly been on. Don't know if he's also been using others. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To DavidJAc123: I've moved your comment to the section above. Actually, as far as I'm concerned, I didn't say I thought you admitted to being Akuri. But since you state you created your account after having first contributed to discussions as an IP, could you please clarify by saying which IP that was? Was it the ones mentioned above as 87.57.35.210 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 130.225.198.129 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing the discussion here it appears that  Clerk assistance requested: to move this report to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Akuri/Archive upon closing. Is that correct? .--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Akuri/Archive&oldid=1077825073"