User:Fipplet
- Fipplet ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report date 09:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Admitted use of these IPs to continue edit-warring while primary account blocked for edit warring. Editor has done the same previously, with a related IP.
- See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Fipplet, which was declined since he admitted to the IP use. The question remains of what to do about sanctions. ANI is having a thread on that matter just now, in which a topic ban from Israeli/Palestinian articles was suggested. I'd point out that Fipplet's 48-hour block on 8 January wound up having no effect, due to the block evasion. Since it is traditional to increase the length of any evaded blocks, I'd suggest that a new 96-hour block be imposed to make up for the previous block that he ignored. EdJohnston ( talk) 20:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comments by accused parties See Defending yourself against claims.
- Comments by other users
- Blocks are indeed preventive; yet this editor keeps avoiding them, and continuing edit-warring, by using socks. Since these are IPs, rather than accounts, they can't be indefinitely blocked. And Fipplet is just holding two fingers up to our policies. If we just shrug our shoulders and ignore this abuse, then there will be no way of enforcing policy. RolandR ( talk) 17:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- @NoCal100: I have had discussions with Fipplet, but as you see from the above they have not produced a good result. The additional block would be intended to prevent more edit warring and sock usage by him in the future, which is a preventive goal. Take a look at his response over at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fipplet and ask yourself if he is likely to follow the sock policy in the future. EdJohnston ( talk) 17:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- This argument ("The additional block would be intended to prevent more edit warring and sock usage by him in the future") could be applied to any case of sanctions or blocks, so it is quite meaningless. If he uses socks again, then you would block him to prevent this from recurring, and at that point, having been duly warned and blocked before, I would wholeheartedly support a block even longer than 96 hours. But to suggest that a 48 hour block for something that happened more than a week ago was somehow 'not enough', and needs to be extended now, without any evidence of current misbehavior, is just text-book punitive sanctions. In any case, this is the wrong forum for this suggestion. If you believe additional sanctions are warranted, take it to AN/I. NoCal100 ( talk) 03:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's not my fault that this investigation is dragging on a week after the first complaint. Huldra reported Fipplet's use of block-evading socks on 10 January
[1]; now we are told we should not be complaining about sometrhing that happened a week ago. It is suggested that, if this happens again, we should make a report at the time, and something will be done. Excuse me for doubting the efficacy of this proposal -- why was action not taken on this case a week ago, when Fipplet was evading his block and the complaint was made? This makes a mockery of Wikipedia's procedures
RolandR (
talk) 17:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- In case you haven't noticed, this page is not WP/ANI, but Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. As was already noted to you when Huldra filed for a CU, there is no need or either a CU, or a sockpuppet investigation, since Fipplet admitted the edits from those IPs are his - so this page and requests are a waste of everyone's time. If you think that additional sanctions are needed - there is an on-going, current AN/I thread about Fipplet's behavior, make your case there. NoCal100 ( talk) 19:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's not my fault that this investigation is dragging on a week after the first complaint. Huldra reported Fipplet's use of block-evading socks on 10 January
[1]; now we are told we should not be complaining about sometrhing that happened a week ago. It is suggested that, if this happens again, we should make a report at the time, and something will be done. Excuse me for doubting the efficacy of this proposal -- why was action not taken on this case a week ago, when Fipplet was evading his block and the complaint was made? This makes a mockery of Wikipedia's procedures
RolandR (
talk) 17:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Clerk note: imported from
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fipplet (2nd nomination) --
lucasbfr
talk 22:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have taken careful note of the feedback above, but am not convinced that we should let Fipplet off with no sanctions. The above comments by NoCal100 appear to prove we should *never* issue sanctions for block evasion. (In his view, such blocks would be punitive and not preventive). Since I don't accept that conclusion, I won't go along with the premise either. Fipplet in the ANI thread (now archived) indicated that he would rather be blocked than put up with any restriction on his editing of Israeli/Palestinian articles: I would prefer being blocked rather than having restrictions on middle eastern topics and a sockpuppet tag on my profile. So, Fipplet is blocked four days for block evasion, and if RolandR wants to restore the sockpuppet tags during that interval, he may do so. After that the sock tags should come down. EdJohnston ( talk) 20:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Conclusions
- Block issued per above. Since no further comments have come in, I suggest that this report be closed. EdJohnston ( talk) 18:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Do not use the |archive parameter yet!
|
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
ââ nix eagle email me 14:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Report date August 11 2009, 22:00 (UTC)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Evidence submitted by George
The users seem to be reverting to similar versions of the Golan Heights article. It's also unusual that the IP address editors seem to edit less than 30 minutes before Fipplet, though they may just be in the same time zone:
- IP edits at 16:52, reverting to a version favored by Fipplet, then Fipplet edits the same article at 16:59, 7 minutes later (Fipplet's first edit in almost 20 hours).
- Fipplet's last edit is at 17:09. The IP edits at 20:13 & 20:24, then Fipplet resumes edits at 20:38.
If they are the same user, then the editor has violated 3RR, which is why I'm requesting CU. ← George [ talk 22:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Also worth noting that another editor on the page, Supreme Deliciousness, who has been edit warring with Fipplet, accused a user with a similar IP address (85.230.110.1) of trying to "hack their account". ← George [ talk 22:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comments by accused parties See Defending yourself against claims.
- Comments by other users
I strongly support this investigation and was thinking about starting one myself against Fipplet, this IP tried too hack my account on the 23th of July, I made a post about it at the ANI and my userpage. And it and varieties of it has showed up several times at the Golan page to do the exact same reverts as Fipplet when he "needs it" at the same time as Fipplet posts.
85.230.109.122 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Golan_Heights&diff=304894774&oldid=304727636
85.230.111.9 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Golan_Heights&diff=305242588&oldid=305241494
85.230.111.237 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Golan_Heights&diff=306434944&oldid=306428321
85.230.110.105 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Golan_Heights&diff=307338622&oldid=307252285
85.230.110.105 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Golan_Heights&diff=307390034&oldid=307388581
85.230.110.105 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Golan_Heights&diff=307426625&oldid=307423650 -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 22:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by User:Huldra
I reported Fipplet for similar problems earlier this year; since he the admitted to editing with an IP while blocked, no CU was deemed neccessary. See:
- Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fipplet, and
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Fipplet, regards, Huldra ( talk) 05:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- CheckUser requests
- Checkuser request – code letter: D (3RR using socks )
- Current status –
Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below. Requested by ←
George [
talk 22:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
-
Clerk endorsed IP looks to be in the same range as the last time. I'm not convinced that CU is necessary, but it has been 7 months since last time, and confirming would be good. Also, a longer block than 4 days should be considered if it is confirmed; the user was previously blocked for abusing multiple IPs.
NW (
Talk) 22:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Conclusions
Confirmed
- Fipplet ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Livetsord ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
IP Range includes those listed above, but there are other editors (and other sockfarms for that matter) as well. I will softblock it for the time being. -- Avi ( talk) 03:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
|
|
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
User:Fipplet
- Fipplet ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report date 09:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Admitted use of these IPs to continue edit-warring while primary account blocked for edit warring. Editor has done the same previously, with a related IP.
- See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Fipplet, which was declined since he admitted to the IP use. The question remains of what to do about sanctions. ANI is having a thread on that matter just now, in which a topic ban from Israeli/Palestinian articles was suggested. I'd point out that Fipplet's 48-hour block on 8 January wound up having no effect, due to the block evasion. Since it is traditional to increase the length of any evaded blocks, I'd suggest that a new 96-hour block be imposed to make up for the previous block that he ignored. EdJohnston ( talk) 20:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comments by accused parties See Defending yourself against claims.
- Comments by other users
- Blocks are indeed preventive; yet this editor keeps avoiding them, and continuing edit-warring, by using socks. Since these are IPs, rather than accounts, they can't be indefinitely blocked. And Fipplet is just holding two fingers up to our policies. If we just shrug our shoulders and ignore this abuse, then there will be no way of enforcing policy. RolandR ( talk) 17:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- @NoCal100: I have had discussions with Fipplet, but as you see from the above they have not produced a good result. The additional block would be intended to prevent more edit warring and sock usage by him in the future, which is a preventive goal. Take a look at his response over at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fipplet and ask yourself if he is likely to follow the sock policy in the future. EdJohnston ( talk) 17:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- This argument ("The additional block would be intended to prevent more edit warring and sock usage by him in the future") could be applied to any case of sanctions or blocks, so it is quite meaningless. If he uses socks again, then you would block him to prevent this from recurring, and at that point, having been duly warned and blocked before, I would wholeheartedly support a block even longer than 96 hours. But to suggest that a 48 hour block for something that happened more than a week ago was somehow 'not enough', and needs to be extended now, without any evidence of current misbehavior, is just text-book punitive sanctions. In any case, this is the wrong forum for this suggestion. If you believe additional sanctions are warranted, take it to AN/I. NoCal100 ( talk) 03:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's not my fault that this investigation is dragging on a week after the first complaint. Huldra reported Fipplet's use of block-evading socks on 10 January
[1]; now we are told we should not be complaining about sometrhing that happened a week ago. It is suggested that, if this happens again, we should make a report at the time, and something will be done. Excuse me for doubting the efficacy of this proposal -- why was action not taken on this case a week ago, when Fipplet was evading his block and the complaint was made? This makes a mockery of Wikipedia's procedures
RolandR (
talk) 17:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- In case you haven't noticed, this page is not WP/ANI, but Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. As was already noted to you when Huldra filed for a CU, there is no need or either a CU, or a sockpuppet investigation, since Fipplet admitted the edits from those IPs are his - so this page and requests are a waste of everyone's time. If you think that additional sanctions are needed - there is an on-going, current AN/I thread about Fipplet's behavior, make your case there. NoCal100 ( talk) 19:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's not my fault that this investigation is dragging on a week after the first complaint. Huldra reported Fipplet's use of block-evading socks on 10 January
[1]; now we are told we should not be complaining about sometrhing that happened a week ago. It is suggested that, if this happens again, we should make a report at the time, and something will be done. Excuse me for doubting the efficacy of this proposal -- why was action not taken on this case a week ago, when Fipplet was evading his block and the complaint was made? This makes a mockery of Wikipedia's procedures
RolandR (
talk) 17:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Clerk note: imported from
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fipplet (2nd nomination) --
lucasbfr
talk 22:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have taken careful note of the feedback above, but am not convinced that we should let Fipplet off with no sanctions. The above comments by NoCal100 appear to prove we should *never* issue sanctions for block evasion. (In his view, such blocks would be punitive and not preventive). Since I don't accept that conclusion, I won't go along with the premise either. Fipplet in the ANI thread (now archived) indicated that he would rather be blocked than put up with any restriction on his editing of Israeli/Palestinian articles: I would prefer being blocked rather than having restrictions on middle eastern topics and a sockpuppet tag on my profile. So, Fipplet is blocked four days for block evasion, and if RolandR wants to restore the sockpuppet tags during that interval, he may do so. After that the sock tags should come down. EdJohnston ( talk) 20:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Conclusions
- Block issued per above. Since no further comments have come in, I suggest that this report be closed. EdJohnston ( talk) 18:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Do not use the |archive parameter yet!
|
|
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
ââ nix eagle email me 14:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Report date August 11 2009, 22:00 (UTC)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Evidence submitted by George
The users seem to be reverting to similar versions of the Golan Heights article. It's also unusual that the IP address editors seem to edit less than 30 minutes before Fipplet, though they may just be in the same time zone:
- IP edits at 16:52, reverting to a version favored by Fipplet, then Fipplet edits the same article at 16:59, 7 minutes later (Fipplet's first edit in almost 20 hours).
- Fipplet's last edit is at 17:09. The IP edits at 20:13 & 20:24, then Fipplet resumes edits at 20:38.
If they are the same user, then the editor has violated 3RR, which is why I'm requesting CU. ← George [ talk 22:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Also worth noting that another editor on the page, Supreme Deliciousness, who has been edit warring with Fipplet, accused a user with a similar IP address (85.230.110.1) of trying to "hack their account". ← George [ talk 22:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comments by accused parties See Defending yourself against claims.
- Comments by other users
I strongly support this investigation and was thinking about starting one myself against Fipplet, this IP tried too hack my account on the 23th of July, I made a post about it at the ANI and my userpage. And it and varieties of it has showed up several times at the Golan page to do the exact same reverts as Fipplet when he "needs it" at the same time as Fipplet posts.
85.230.109.122 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Golan_Heights&diff=304894774&oldid=304727636
85.230.111.9 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Golan_Heights&diff=305242588&oldid=305241494
85.230.111.237 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Golan_Heights&diff=306434944&oldid=306428321
85.230.110.105 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Golan_Heights&diff=307338622&oldid=307252285
85.230.110.105 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Golan_Heights&diff=307390034&oldid=307388581
85.230.110.105 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Golan_Heights&diff=307426625&oldid=307423650 -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 22:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by User:Huldra
I reported Fipplet for similar problems earlier this year; since he the admitted to editing with an IP while blocked, no CU was deemed neccessary. See:
- Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fipplet, and
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Fipplet, regards, Huldra ( talk) 05:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- CheckUser requests
- Checkuser request – code letter: D (3RR using socks )
- Current status –
Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below. Requested by ←
George [
talk 22:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
-
Clerk endorsed IP looks to be in the same range as the last time. I'm not convinced that CU is necessary, but it has been 7 months since last time, and confirming would be good. Also, a longer block than 4 days should be considered if it is confirmed; the user was previously blocked for abusing multiple IPs.
NW (
Talk) 22:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Conclusions
- Confirmed
- Fipplet ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Livetsord ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
IP Range includes those listed above, but there are other editors (and other sockfarms for that matter) as well. I will softblock it for the time being. -- Avi ( talk) 03:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
|
|
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |