Misplaced Pages

:Sockpuppet investigations/Lightbreather: 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 22:30, 25 February 2015 editUnbroken Chain (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers32,193 edits →Comments by other users← Previous edit Revision as of 22:31, 25 February 2015 edit undoUnbroken Chain (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers32,193 edits →Comments by other usersNext edit →
Line 40: Line 40:
:''If'' the IPs are an editor attempting to avoid ] or attempting to ] its block/ban? Then we must find out. ] (]) 22:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC) :''If'' the IPs are an editor attempting to avoid ] or attempting to ] its block/ban? Then we must find out. ] (]) 22:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


::] it just reminded me of this ], it's flimsy but it does fit. Also point of fact Cirt opened this SPI. ] (]) 22:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC) ::] it just reminded me of this ], it's flimsy but it does fit. Also point of fact Cirt opened this SPI. ] (]) 22:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>====== ======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>======

Revision as of 22:31, 25 February 2015

Lightbreather

Lightbreather (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/Lightbreather/Archive.



25 February 2015

– An SPI clerk has declined a request for CheckUser, and the case is now awaiting a behavioural investigation.

Suspected sockpuppets


  1. Prior history = user has history of one block for socking and one block for block evasion see block log.
  2. User Lightbreather said the IP's actions should "get an award". Please see DIFF.
  3. A lot going on here at 172.56.0.0/18.
  4. Possible trolling, IP user 172.56.9.123 (talk · contribs) had prior activity at sock investigation of this user DIFF.
  5. IP user 172.56.8.170 (talk · contribs) is first to show up to deletion discussion created by user, possible dup voting DIFF.
  6. Current search of ANI page reveals multiple places this IP user seems to be showing up, see admission of block evasion at "I am evading a block but not a sock for which I was blocked Self Reported".
  7. Here at ANI page at link "IP violating WP:CANVASS and the spirit of WP:SPA", we have multiple editors raising sock concerns, including: Lugnuts, CombatWombat42, Baseball Bugs, and GoodDay.

Requesting Checkuser investigation into above IPs, and range 172.56.0.0/18, and any associated accounts to get to the bottom of what's going on here. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

It would make sense this is Lightbreather however I will raise one more sock possibility, it could be Neotarf. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing sensible about this SPI. I can't speak for whether or not the IP was canvassing, but if the editors listed above think that notifying one project about a discussion is canvassing, they need to read WP:CANVASS. Lightbreather (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
If the IPs are an editor attempting to avoid scrutiny or attempting to evade its block/ban? Then we must find out. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
User:Mike V it just reminded me of this ], it's flimsy but it does fit. Also point of fact Cirt opened this SPI. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Clerk declined - Checkuser doesn't publicly comment on the relationships between registered accounts and IP addresses. This will have to be investigated on the basis of behaviour only. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Clerk note: I've blocked 172.56.0.0/18 for a week, as there's been much disruption from this IP range and not only from whomever is operating it as shown here. I doubt that it's Lightbreather, as there would need to be an explanation as to why she would open up a sockpuppet investigation on herself. 1 @Hell in a Bucket: If you think it is Neotarf, I'd like you to support that statement with some evidence, please. Mike V • Talk 22:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Categories: