Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/74.208.16.55

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:74.208.16.55

Suspected sockpuppeteer: 74.208.16.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Davkal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Again with the open proxies editing only WT:FRINGE. Fairly obvious parallels.

Comments: For those of us who are unfamiliar with the case, could you please provide a few of the "obvious parallels", or at least a link to previous discussions? Thanks, El on ka 19:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best thing to do is look through the contributions of all of Davkal's sockpuppets. Every single SPA that has only edited at WT:FRINGE has been a Davkal account. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all let me express my sympathy for those who can't be with us at this time. One point to note: it is not true that all the SPAs who have been editing the fringe page have been davkal socks. What is true is that all the SPAs who have been editing the fringe article have been blocked as davkal socks. This is quite a different matter though. It is the difference between every proxy being davkal and every proxy being blamed on davkal. I could name at least 20 editors off the top of my head who SA has abused over the years and many others who disagree with his take on all things wiki. At present there are eight editors (including 4 admins) who are "banned" from his talk page. I could be one of the 20, or one of the eight, or one of the many others that must surely exist, or I could be davkal. Who knows? Who cares? Block away then, and block as davkal (I'm sure he/me (????) won't mind).

BTW, SA makes great play of the fact that all these "davkal" socks keep hounding him. I looked at the entire edit history of every single davkal listed sock and there are only a handful of edits among the lot that could be construed as SA-directed and even those are normally in a humorous way (e.g., pointing out what "braggadocio" means). It looks to me like SA, and a few others, have a touch of davkalanoia. See ya, but I wouldn't wanna be ya.74.208.16.55 (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka: Not knowing that SA had filed this report here earlier in the day, I recently filed an RFCU here. I elaborate on some more of the evidence there. Basically, this is an IP account that showed up 1 day ago to edit WP:Fringe and somehow already knows about SA and his editing restrictions from previous ArbCom proceedings[1]. This is pretty textbook as far as Davkal operates. If it's not Davkal, and I would be seriously surprised by that, then perhaps it's more simply a sock of some other SA antagonist. Antelan ^talk 23:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as I reread the IP's statement here, it is now certain that it is being used as a sock. It may not be davkal's (dubious, but possible), but it's certainly being used abusively. Antelan ^talk 04:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to my checks, the IP address looks a whole lot like an open proxy or compromised server - Alison ^❤ 21:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Blocked 1 year by Alison as a proxy. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]