Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Walter Görlitz/Archive

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Walter Görlitz

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

04 October 2015

Suspected sockpuppets


  • This is a diagram showing the user contributions of Walter Görlitz and 208.81.212.222. The rows indicate dates and the columns indicate hours ("0" is 00:00-00:59, "1" is 01:00-01:59, etc.)
    • A red block indicates an hour when Walter Görlitz made at least one edit.
    • A blue block indicates an hour when 208.81.212.222 made at least one edit.
    • A purple block would have indicated an hour when both users made an edit.
Notice that there are no purple blocks; i.e. they have never made an edit in the same hour. The graph only shows 9/9/2015 at 00:00 to 10/4/2015 at 01:00, but I went back ever further and couldn’t find any activity that overlapped. Note that both users are from around Vancouver B.C. It's odd that two users from the same city would never have overlapping edits. You can confirm all the information in this graph by looking at their User contribution pages (Special:Contributions/Walter Görlitz, Special:Contributions/208.81.212.222).

Comments by other users

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

I work a that company and most of those edits on the same articles are by me. I have been conscious never to be in a COI or attempted to sway votes in AfDs or attempt to change opinion. If there is to be a block, make it to my user account, not the company one as 300+ employees use the IP. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the IP is blocked, I could lose employment at the company which is the reason I ask for the block not to extend to the IP. I would also like to point out that I have never engaged in edit wars using both accounts, I have simply commented on them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since an admin has asked about my motives, I will discuss them. I suspected a few days ago that Walter Görlitz and 208.81.212.222 were the same person (during this discussion) I didn't say anything at the time because 1) At the time, I had no proof and 2) Though Walter and I have disagreed a couple of times, our discussions have remained amiable, and I didn't try to put an otherwise nice person in the fire without any evidence. Walter then accused me of acting in bad faith (here) for not inviting him to this discussion. Let me be clear: this is my first RFC, so I admittedly don't know all the rules. WP:RFC mentions publicizing a discussion, but it talks about posting it in relevant places, which is what I thought I was doing. I (wrongly) assumed that Walter and the other two editors (one of those being 208.81.212.222) involved in the original discussion would find the RFC because it was posted in the same place. But, if there's anything I dislike, it is a hypocrite. We're all hypocrites in some way, but for him to accuse me of bad faith because of a misunderstanding when he himself was using a sockpuppet to influence the very same discussion, that is just wrong. So I did some digging so that I could feel absolutely sure that this person was using a sockpuppet, and I feel like I've presented a pretty convincing case. I think I've shown that this is Walter's sockpuppet and that he's used in a way that is improper. I don't typically involve myself in administrative matters here: I'm mostly here to edit, and to do so in good faith. But I really don't like being accused of bad faith by a person showing bad faith themselves. Bmf 051 (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not, just wrong. I am not using the IP as a sock. As for bad faith on my part, that has been insinuated but not proven. I did accuse Bmf 051 of editing in bad faith because he carried on a discussion that affected several articles in a private location without informing editors of those pages that would be affected that it was happening, and then applied an interpretation of that discussion, before consensus was reached, on multiple articles.
I, however, never stated that I was not the IP and the IP and my registered account never stacked votes. I did use one or the other to comment, never both. The case of the Inter Milan talk page was the only one where I cast a non-vote using my account and discussed with the IP. I never discussed with the registered account and I never non-voted with the IP. So there was no sock-puppeting there, especially based on the total number of editors who discussed there. And as for the Whitecaps, I discussed on the project talk page as the IP and not registered account. On the RfC, I discussed as myself, not as the IP.
As for why I do not sign in at work, it's, as I understand it, a corporate requirement that I do not use an account. I can't go into the details further. I may consult legal at the office to determine if I am breaking the company's guidelines by editing in this way though, but I don't have any intention to do that soon.
Again, I have been editing while not signed-in, but have not been using the IP as a sock. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion solution seems both fair and reasonable. I added the template to my user page. @Bmf 051: how does that sit with you? Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good with me. Bmf 051 (talk) 02:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • I've declined the CU request. We rarely publicly disclose the IP of a named account. I've also notified Walter Görlitz of this SPI, something I don't do often, but the filer's motives trouble me.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bmf 051: Thanks for your comments. @Walter Görlitz: It's troubling that you use the IP. Obviously, despite your efforts, some of your use of it is being construed as disruptive. Why can't you stop using the IP? Alternatively, why can't you log into your account at work so the underlying IP would still be used but the contributions would properly show as yours?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Walter Görlitz: After consultation with another CheckUser, I've come up with an option that would permit you to continue to edit as you have been doing. On your userpage, insert an alternative account notification pursuant to the instructions at WP:ALTACCN. Given that others besides you may use this IP, it would not be appropriate to put such a notice on the IP's userpage. If you are willing to do that, I will close this with no further action. But even with the notification, it does not permit you to use both accounts in a situation in which you teamed together as one person. My preference is that you consult with legal as you mentioned. I'm not sure why you can't do that "soon", but I'll leave that up to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

21 February 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

See the history and reverts at Ubuntu. Admitted here. Using an alternate account or IP to edit war in an article you have edited in is strictly forbidden. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that now, and obviously saw your saying so on the talk page. But you did not make this clear until after you had edited the page using both accounts, giving the impression of being two separate editors, which is an abuse of multiple accounts that you have been warned against before on this page : see WP:ILLEGIT.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was fooled into thinking this was a separate editor, hence my comment on the talk about other editors being drawn into an edit war. I've already reported 3RR violation before seeing this SPI at WP:AN/3#User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:Widefox (Result: ). Note Walter has admitted IP is him here Talk:Ubuntu. Widefox; talk 16:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

User:Walter Görlitz In what way is logging out to go over 3RR "valid"? Your talk page is littered with edit warring warnings. Widefox; talk 16:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First, it's not past 3RR. Second, it's not logging out. Third, my edit history has dozens if not hundreds of edits a day. The recent edit warring warnings were because the other editor had no clue what constituted edit warring. In short, he was warned for edit warring himself while disputing the claim. In short, lots of great edits, no actual violations except the perception that I was a different editor than the registered editor. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been confused in the past by the alternate IP account too since there is no indication on the IP's pages that it is an alternate account for Walter Görlitz. The only acknowledgment is on Görlitz's page. That does not help when the IP edits and someone goes to the IP's page to comment. There is no reason to suspect that the IP is an alternate account. Per WP:SOCK#NOTIFY both accounts should be tagged. Meters (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Just two cents: Walter Gorlitz is an Appreciated Editor but, and this is a big but, they've racked up an impressive block log for edit warring. Back and forthing using the IP and the registered account simply doesn't look good--not all editors can be expected to check a user page and follow the infoboxes and all that, and thus the impression of someone going up against two rather than one editor is easily created. I don't have much to say on whether there should be blocks and all that (I'd like to see no block, though), but, Walter, this just doesn't look good and it clearly upsets other editors. You said earlier, maybe in the archived SPI, that you didn't votestack using the two accounts--if I were running the place I'd ask you to not have overlap at all, including in article space, unless there's some pressing need (BLP, vandalism)--and maybe not even then. Drmies (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've blocked Walter and his IP for one week. As I stated in the archive, "But even with the notification, it does not permit you to use both accounts in a situation in which you teamed together as one person." Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

08 March 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

There was an edit war between the sockmaster and user:Fcbjuvenil (which later User:Govvy and admin User:Mattythewhite were added to Fcbjuvenil's side) on Marc-André ter Stegen. All edits (on that article) of the sockmaster and alleged ip sock are the same, removing the word "Spanish club" from "Spanish club Barcelona" . It seem the ip was a black-hand account for Walter, which good hand black hand is a forbidden way of logout edits.

As a sidenote, after user:Govvy stating the ip in the thread Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Marc-André ter Stegen, the ip immediately correct/refactor Govvy's "typo" (see Special:Diff/886644902). So, since i can't request CU for ip , it seem Walter is socking by behavioural evidence, or someone impersonating as a black-hand account. If it is impersonating , than the real sockmaster behind the ip also acted quite thoughtfully that the ip also reverted quite a few edits by Govvy in the article of Ter Stegen. As well as Walter sending warning to the ip. Matthew hk (talk) 11:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Add one more diff for the first ip. Outside the Ter Stegen article, there is not enough articles to compare (see Editor Interaction Analyser: only overlapping article was Ter Stegen ) , but the ip also remove the word "French" before the club "PSG" from the lede of the article Thomas Meunier. Loosely the same behaviour of removing country from the lede as Walter in Ter Stegen. Yes there is also someone else against to add country in lede in the wikiproject thread, but not enough information to suspect the sockmaster is not Walter. Or at first it is impersonated as Walter and then impersonated as Govvy. Matthew hk (talk) 13:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Add more joejabbing ip in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, at least those now look like related to those vandals in this SPI filing page, that adding <!----> to the filing to blank it. Matthew hk (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Adding 109.144.210.74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 75.102.132.58 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) following their disruption to this page, and trolling here and here. The latter IP basically admits socking here. Doubt they are linked to Walter, though. GiantSnowman 13:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
74.196.254.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - see this. GiantSnowman 13:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. 109.144.210.74 declared he is Walter in Special:Diff/886772339. Certainly someone is gaming the system that we can't request CU check to compare user and to the ip. The second ip (75.102.132.58) that stated by GiantSnowman, is from US but not UK (BT Group), while the SPI archive, those ip are Canadian ip. By behavioural evidence at first the ip 109.152.199.173 is the second member of the two users WP:Tag team edit war. Now more odd action became smoke clouds to blur the behavioural evidence . Matthew hk (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RickinBaltimore, The Rambling Man, and Favonian: So should we split the SPI case, now more ip hopping in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Now i can't tell except the first ip, they are joe jobbing, or all ip are joejobbing . Matthew hk (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The IPs appear to be VPN, so in essence, it's someone that knows computers that could be anywhere in the world. Govvy (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are me. I'm in Canada. I recognize that the anon is problematic, but I am not affiliated with any of them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was closed with no action to you. Other ip are blocked. But as Govvy stated those appeared as VPN and the last 3 ips were reblocked as open proxies, which, yes, we can't confirm the sockmaster of those ip. But also, i would quote the comment in the archive of this SPI "But even with the notification, it does not permit you to use both accounts in a situation in which you teamed together as one person.". I am not suggesting you are using VPN, but please stop any logging out 3RR. (And I am sorry to say this again if you stop doing this long time ago). Matthew hk (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the situation. I also understand it could have been you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just don't turn this page into a forum, the ip do team up with you in the article. And yes, ip can impersonating me or you can accuse me to setting up to impersonate someone else as joejabbing. But at least i did not stack up stuff in ANI (either against you or you against someone else as edit warring) or named in the opening paragraph of a thread of football (such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 122#Players representing a nation different from their birth). And please find a new venue to reply instead of here. Matthew hk (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just don't open an SPI on me next time, and do respect MOS:ACCESS and MOS:INDENTGAP. And please stop telling me what to do and where I can do it. I did not open the SPI and It was wrong to do so. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Red X Unrelated The IPs that are blanking this page appear to be joejobbing Walter. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Three of the IPs were blocked previously as a proxy. There's not a way to determine the exact master for those IPs, but for this case, there's no evidence to show Walter is doing this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05 May 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Walter has used this range in the past. Particularly the recent MOS:DATETOPRES edits make it clear he's still using it. With Walter blocked, the most recent edits are evasion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:57, 5 May 2022 (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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Walter_Görlitz/Archive&oldid=1087394467"