Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/24.3.180.166

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:24.3.180.166

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

76.120.173.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Fragments of Jade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Erigu (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

These users claim to be three different people (Fragments of Jade, in reference to 24.3.180.166, 76.120.173.40, in reference to Fragments of Jade, Fragments of Jade, in reference to 24.3.180.166 and 76.120.173.40, in the "Heather's name" section of Talk:Silent Hill... also, the three "votes" in favor of "Heather Morris" were cast by the three suspected users), but edit the same articles (mostly Silent Hill and Wild Arms-related ones, but you'll also note 24.3.180.166 and Fragments of Jade's shared interest in The Looking Glass Wars, for example [1] [2]), push for the same edits to the point of edit-warring (most notably about the last name of a Silent Hill character [3] [4] [5] and the capitalization of the title Wild Arms [6] [7] [8] <- strange contradiction between the actual edit and the comment for the last one), revert good faiths edits and refer to them as "vandalism," ignore their interlocutors' arguments, respond to them in rather rude and hostile fashion (going as far as to accuse them of "racism" for no apparent reason [9] [10]), and generally resort to very similar arguments (such as claiming that the makers of the game e-mailed them and proved them right [11] [12]) and insults.

You'll also note how 76.120.173.40 and Fragments of Jade appeared shortly after 24.3.180.166's disappearance and immediately started supporting her views in Talk:Silent Hill (it would appear Fragments of Jade even already knew 24.3.180.166's gender).

Other weird "coincidences" would include the three users' shared habit of replying without any indentation in discussion pages, signing immediately after the final period of their comments (i.e. no space or anything in between the two), misspelling the same words in the same manner (such as "omit" -> "ommit" [13] [14] or "editing"/"edited" -> "editting"/"editted" [15] [16]), or blanking their personal talk pages regularly, generally right after one last hostile reply [17] [18].

On top of that, the WHOIS results for 24.3.180.166 and 76.120.173.40 prove to be eerily similar.

EDIT (July 28):

Thatcher explained here that Fragments of Jade was blocked for violating the 3RR through a combination of logged-in and logged-out edits. On July 2, 2008 (the day of the violation, according to Thatcher here), 76.120.173.40 is the only user that's been pushing the same edits as Fragments of Jade on the Silent Hill article.

Therefore, it would appear Thatcher confirmed that Fragments of Jade and 76.120.173.40 are in fact one and the same, despite Fragments of Jade's claims to the contrary.

Comments

These accusations are completely false, and arose only because other people had the nerve to go against the user making the accusation. Yes, I like Wild ARMs and Silent Hill. So what? Both are video games and incredibly popular ones at that. What next? Do we both like Harry Potter or Final Fantasy, maybe? Secondly, it's impossible for us to be the same. We don't even live in the same state. Someone already took the liberty of posting where the two IPs live, down to the county, which is presumably why they both disappeared, not because of sockpuppetry. I wouldn't want to go somewhere where my residence was being publically posted either. As for the spelling mistakes pointed out, there is no validaty to those, as we've never shared the mispelling of the same words that I know of. I've no connection to either of those IPs, though I'm sure the admin or whatever you call him who has been sidestepping the rules will convince someone to lie so that I will be banned. Wouldn't surprise me at all. At any rate, if the information provided for them is true, there's no way we could be the same person, due to the vast difference in location. Again, these accusations were only made because one childish young lady, who is suspected of being a sock herself, couldn't handle that people were disagreeing with her and dug up some random evidence. We sign are posts directly after our messages? So do a lot of people. In fact, every time you go to edit a page, there is a message telling you to do just that. How can you even investigate someone, based on such ridiculous grounds?Fragments of Jade (talk) 01:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These accusations are completely false, and arose only because other people had the nerve to go against the user making the accusation.

I just listed many reasons as to why I suspect you of sock puppetry.

it's impossible for us to be the same. We don't even live in the same state.

Well, that's what you're saying, just like you're saying you're three different people. Thing is, I don't believe you.

Someone already took the liberty of posting where the two IPs live, down to the county, which is presumably why they both disappeared

They didn't both disappear after the WHOIS results were mentioned (that would be July 4 [19]). 24.3.180.166 "disappeared" last month, well before that. As for 76.120.173.40, she (I'm assuming she's a "she"!) was still there after that, and actually reverted the Silent Hill article twice on July 6 [20] [21]. You should remember, as you pushed the exact same edits on that day, except you did so four times and got blocked because of it [22] [23] [24] [25].

I'm sure the admin or whatever you call him who has been sidestepping the rules will convince someone to lie so that I will be banned.

Damage control, already?

And I suppose we won't ever know what you mean exactly by "sidestepping the rules"? Just like I'll never get to know why you're accusing me of "racism"?

these accusations were only made because one childish young lady, who is suspected of being a sock herself, couldn't handle that people were disagreeing with her and dug up some random evidence.

That's a bunch of circumstantial evidence, actually.

Oh, and I'm not so young, nor am I a lady. Childish? Well, maybe, but I've seen worse. And if you're going to accuse me of sock puppetry, by all means, go ahead. But I'm afraid you'll need at least some circumstantial evidence, and you haven't provided any so far. In fact, it sounds like you're accusing me and others of sock puppetry only because we're disagreeing with you, which is precisely what you've been (wrongly) accusing me of.

We sign are posts directly after our messages? So do a lot of people.

With no space in between the final period and the sig? Well, when I mentioned my suspicions on the talk page, many people had posted comments already, and only you three had that peculiar habit on the entire page. In fact, you never failed to sign like that. There was only one instance of another user doing that, and that was for one message only: the rest of the time, that user put a space in between his comments and his sig.

Certainly not damning evidence, naturally, but yet another "strange coincidence"... Erigu (talk) 03:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More lies from you, as expected. And now you reveal another of your fake names. Nice try, but I know it's you. You really need to grow up, tell the truth for once, and accept that you are not always right.Fragments of Jade (talk) 05:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More lies from you

More baseless and gratuitous accusations from you.

And now you reveal another of your fake names. Nice try, but I know it's you.

I just created this "Erigu" account in order to report you here, as some advised me to [26]. I never pretended I wasn't 88.161.129.43. In fact, I would hope you know it's me, as I've made a reference to your accusing me of "racism".

And again, if you're going to accuse me of sock puppetry, by all means, go ahead. Good luck with that. Erigu (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grow up. You just can't handle that people disagree with you. Otherwise, this report would not exist, because the accusations would never have happened. It's a shame you can't have a discussion with harassing the people who disagree with you.Fragments of Jade (talk) 09:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grow up.

Thank you for the extra material: [27].

It's a shame you can't have a discussion with harassing the people who disagree with you

Thank you for the extra material: [28] (by the way, this is the "harassment" mentioned in the link: [29]).

That also helped me dig up this: [30] and [31]. It's not like I was trying to be exhaustive while listing my evidence above anyway, but "discussing" with you is motivating. 88.161.129.43 (talk) 12:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not evidence at all! Like all the other links you posted, it relates to nothing at all relevant to your accusations. With your racist, witchy attitude why are you so surprised that people keep getting ticked with you? Again, learn how to have an adult discussion, instead of acting like a jerk and making outrageous accusations the minute things don't go your way.Fragments of Jade (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not evidence at all! Like all the other links you posted, it relates to nothing at all relevant to your accusations.

It's circumstantial evidence. In this case, eerily similar behavior and words.

Of course, I'd prefer damning evidence, such as an IP check (I'd bet your current IP is 76.120.173.40).

With your racist, witchy attitude

Enough with the baseless allegations of racism, please. You're not helping your case. And "witchy"? Er... For the third time, I'm a man.

why are you so surprised that people keep getting ticked with you?

Thank you for the extra material: [32]. Erigu (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extra material? There is no material. You're just saying that and trying to use everything I say against me, even when it's got nothing to do with your accusation.Fragments of Jade (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's got everything to do with it. But if you feel otherwise, I guess you really shouldn't worry about the outcome of this case. Erigu (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My only worry comes from the fact that you've got an admin bending the rules in your favor, as well as Wikipedia's history for claiming people were socks by manipulating evidence, something I have a whole forum full of proof of.Fragments of Jade (talk) 08:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure... *steps back* Erigu (talk) 09:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a secret anymore. It's dead-obvious what he's doing.Fragments of Jade (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know what or who you're talking about... But just like you never bothered to explain why I was "racist", I guess I can't expect any specifics here either, huh? Erigu (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You already know all the racist things you've said about Americans. Playing dumb to try and irritate me is pathetic.Fragments of Jade (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Show me or shut up? Erigu (talk) 01:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about YOU shut up? I'm getting more than a little sick of your attitude, especially in regards to Americans. You need to grow up or at least play somewhere else, where there's no one around who has to listen to your nonsense.Fragments of Jade (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK guys. That's enough. This argument is not helping your cases. FoJ, if you haven't been sockpuppetting you have nothing to worry about, getting you back up makes you look guilty. Erigu, you've made your case, arguing makes this look like a grudge. I suggest that both of you back away from this please. --Thaddius (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er... It's been 9 days, you know... 88.161.129.43 (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that soon after posting but didn't see fit to remove my message. My bad. Did you end up submitting a checkuser request? Otherwise this'll have to be redone. --Thaddius (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Lack of manpower. Resubmit if it's still a problem. Enigma ^message 18:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]