• Wordbuilder ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 76.214.211.56 ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser ( log))
• Code letter: E
• Supporting evidence: [1] [2] [3]

[4]Wordbuilder exonerated by CheckUser.But who is the edit-warring sock? Andyvphil ( talk) 12:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC) reply

1st 3 diffs are reverts by Woodstock,IL [5] anon with NO other contribs than the three reverts, [6] but with repeated format-sophisticated edit comment ("Revert POV-pushing by Andyvphil per WP:SOAP") showing he is definately not a newbie, and probably using a bot or shell to write that bluelink to my contribs page. Anon editor refused demand he identify self by account name. Wordbuilder, who had edited shortly before the three reverts and who had not edited during them, then provided a 4th revert, a 3RR violation if the anon is his sock. Please check. Andyvphil ( talk) 14:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply

requesting user (andyvphil) is known for "pushing the edge" of WP policy. He is accused by others of tendentious editing, and has a long history of admin activity. (user: wordbuilder) has reverted me before but generally his edits are fair and I have never seen any other accusations of sockpuppets or any other improper editing activity. 72.0.180.2 ( talk) 20:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I've told you before that I'm really getting tired of your vaporous accusations against me, unaccompanied by diffs. To repeat: without specifics or diffs, you're just lying. And I've never filed a checkuser request or sockpuppet report before. 76.214.211.56 is clearly an experienced editor logging in as an anon, and presumably thought he had some reason to refuse to identify himself. 3RR is the obvious candidate for that "reason". Checkuser is intended to catch such activity. Just do it. Andyvphil ( talk) 23:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply

so are you saying you haven't been reported for tendentious editing AND 3rr AND sockpuppets, yourself? LOL as usual andy- the diffs are your smallest problem believe me. 72.0.180.2 ( talk) 01:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply

What I'm saying, and have now said repeatedly, is that you are a liar. E.g., I wasn't "reported for sockpuppets", I was falsely accused both of being and of operating a sockpuppet. And, unlike you, I provide specifics, links and diffs, not just smearing falsehoods. [7] Andyvphil ( talk) 09:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply

My IP is 70.56.143.113. Even though I'm in New Mexico, that traces to Denver, Colorado since Qwest is my ISP. The checkuser will verify that I'm guilty of nothing more than being one of two users who happened to disagree with Andyvphil and took action accordingly at about the same time. → Wordbuilder ( talk) 21:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I checked this as well (civic duty, and all that), and noted that Wordbuilder claims to live in New Mexico and has a rather unhealthy Texas fixation. Extremely unlikely that the Illinois IP address has anything to do with this user. Much more likely that this is a personal thing with Andyvphil, who does this sort of thing with anyone who might revert or edit his work. -- Scjessey ( talk) 21:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply

"does this sort of thing with anyone who might revert or edit his work" refers I guess to my recent reporting of your five reverts in a 24 hour period, [8] for which you offered a self-block, which was accepted, with a warning issued to you. Andyvphil ( talk) 09:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Ha! Guilty on this charge. My hometown is only ~40 miles from the Texas border, I married a girl from the Lonestar State, and my son was born there. → Wordbuilder ( talk) 21:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply

This isn't personal with Wordbuilder. I'm willing to accept that he's not the anon, particularly since he is using the locution " Andyvphil" to refer to me rather than the " Andyvphil" used in the edit comments. Different bot or shell, I guess. But 76.214.211.56 is clearly an anonymized experienced user, and if he had any reverts on that page in the previous 24 hours he violated 3RR. Detecting a shift to anon to avoid violating 3RR is one of the intended uses of the checkuser tool (that's why there's an "E" type). So, please do it. Andyvphil ( talk) 23:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply

except as has already been said- this is a "shift from anon" not a shift-to, which doesn't fit as many redflags. 72.0.180.2 ( talk) 01:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Check user is not a fishing pole; considering other editors agree they have never seen suspicious activity from wordbuilder, I think this request fails the "closed fishing season" provision of the checkuser policy. 72.0.180.2 ( talk) 02:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply

If Wordbuilder is not the puppeteer (and on this, I'm with Reagan: "Trust, but verify."), then it was probably a shift-to anon on the part of an editor with reverts in the preceeding 24 hours. Again: We have an experienced editor making three reverts as an anon. If I could tell for sure which editor did it, and could thereby prove that a 3RR violation took place, there would be no need to request checkuser. Suspicious and potentially policy-violating behavior has taken place. If no established editor is editing from IP 76.214.211.56, or if the editor doing so did no reverts to Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign,_2008 in the preceeding or, less likely to be relevant, following 24 hours, then nothing further need be done. But it surely cannot be right that I am asked to prove what the result of checkuser will be before it can be employed. 76.214.211.56 is a sock. The only thing we don't know is: whose? Andyvphil ( talk) 08:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Two comments:

• Whether or not an editor reverts, then goes anonymous in order to violate 3RR, or starts off anonymous and then logs in to do the same thing is irrelevant.
• Whether or not an editor has been in trouble with admins in the past for unrelated issues should have no bearing on the merit of a check user request. The evidence provided to back up the request is all that matters.

Note that this post should not be taken as either an endorsement or a criticism of the request in general. I don't have an opinion on it either way, except to say that if it turns out that a sock has been used to violate 3RR then I support any action that an admin deems necessary (or no action, as the case may be). -- Hux ( talk) 02:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC) reply

•  Note: Since Wordbuilder has stated his own IP, I can confirm that he is telling the truth and has no relationship that I can find with the 76.214.211.56 editor. Thatcher 01:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC) reply

CheckUser policy says CheckUser can be used to (quote):

1. Determine from which IPs a user has edited the Wikimedia wiki
2. Determine the edits on the Wikimedia wiki of a specific IP (even when logged in)

Apparently you've done the former for Wordbuilder, and he is not the sock operator. Fine, I only named Wordbuilder because he was an obvious if not exclusive candidate, and the template required me to name a candidate. But that was never the real question. We have an obvious sock edit warring from a ip. Probably he switched to editing from an ip because he had used up one or more of his "allowed" 3 reverts, and wanted a full quiver. Do you want me to go through the edits of the preceeding 24h and file for each reverter (this is an active current-politics article, so I suspect there are a number of them) so that you can do a Type-1 check for each, as you did for Wordbuilder, or can you just do a Type-2 check to see if any editors editing from that ip performed reverts on the article in question withing the 24h envilope, so that I can go ahead and file a 3RR report? You don't have to reveal any results if the answer is no, and this is a legitimate type-E "acceptable request" reason, so what's the problem? Andyvphil ( talk) 12:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC) reply

•  Note: Further discussion moved to talk page. Thatcher 02:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC) reply

•   CheckUser is not for fishing The address you cite is part of a pool of 4094 IP addresses (76.214.208.0 - 76.214.223.255). There appears to be at least one individual who has used different addresses from that pool to edit articles related to Barack Obama, the Iraq War and the 2008 elections as an IP. There are also a few minor registered users, and IP editors with very different interests. The reason "checkuser is not for fishing" is that it is often difficult when dealing with dynamic addresses to get a perfect match. If you say, "based on behavior I think it is Joe Smith" and I find Joe Smith on that range, I can give an answer. But I can't haul off and block every user there because he might have almost violated 3RR on an article. Thatcher 02:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm not clear why you can't state more clearly if the one editor from the ip pool who has edited this article did in fact do reverts within the 24 hour envilope, but if you don't think the identification is clear enough to issue a warning I will respectfully disagree but accept your decision. I also respectfully disagree with the characterization "fishing" -- I know of no way of finding out that multiple editors might have used this ip other than asking you to use the tool. But you did, and even if it turned out not to be sufficiently conclusive for you, for that I thank you. Andyvphil ( talk) 02:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry, I guess I was not clear. There are several IPs in that range that have edited these topics, I assume they are the same person, but I can not be sure. No registered account can be associated with those IPs directly enough to take action. Thatcher 02:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC) reply

No, I'm sorry. You wrote "to edit articles... as an IP" and I didn't read carefully enough. If no ip's from that range, and none of the "minor registered users", edited the article within the 24h envilope then presumably no 3RR violation took place. Thanks again. Andyvphil ( talk) 03:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC) reply