Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/207.144.59.134

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.

[edit] User:207.144.59.134

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

A young n***a from da street (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
A young nin*a from da street (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
MullinsLabsInc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
JoesphJobs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Rklawton 01:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

• User:207.144.59.134 on April 21 this IP added bogus information to the Wicked Witch of the East article - first without sources and later with bogus sources. I checked the sources and they are not related to the edits. These were pay-per-view sources, and the editor may have been hoping no one would pay to check. The user is vandal blocked for 31 hours.
• User:A young n***a from da street creates an account on April 22 and re-adds the bogus information. This account is indef blocked due to a username policy violation, and the user creates a new account with permission. User characterizes admin objections as "racist" thereby providing an indication that this is actually a troll/vandal account.
• User:A young nin*a from da street (the new account) continues re-adding bogus information to the WWE article and is indef blocked for vandalism/trolling
• User:MullinsLabsInc creates an account on April 23, expresses support for the above editors, and re-adds the same bogus information to the WWE article. User self-identifies as "Mrs. Mullins" and makes legal threats here, here, here, and possibly here. This user is indef blocked for legal threats.
• User:JoesphJobs - account created April 24 - only edits are to User:MullinsLabsInc page to post a copyvio news article. The user name itself is a take-off on Joe job - a reference to another editor's suggestion that the offending editor is impersonating someone at Mullins Labs Inc in order to make them look bad.

Here's a thread that seems to tie all three together[1]. Note that the IP address claims to be in medicine and user MullinsLabsInc claims to be in the medical testing field here. Rklawton 02:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

While this appears to be a case of "problem solved" in three out of four instances, it would be useful to know if a longer block for the IP address might be called for. A successful check-user might also provide additional evidence against the user making legal threats. Rklawton 13:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have been in contact with Mullins Labs, Inc. who have no idea as to who the last individual is but are looking into the matter. It certainly was not a representative of their company who made the legal threats in their name. Currently following up with evidence so they can take further action as they have their 'suspects'. Kindly requesting WP:RFCU on this matter. - Alison^☺ 19:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• User:JoesphJobs now indefblocked for userpage vandalism and indentical talkpage rant as previous known vandal - Alison ☺ 04:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

• 207.144.59.134 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) does seem to be the origin (or at least have something to do with) of all of these difficulties. It's from a similar geographic location (the Carolinas), which would suggest that it is someone who knows Mullins Labs, possibly related to an employee there. At this point, I feel a request for checkuser would probably not be in order. I'm blocking the IP for 1 month due to disruption, sockpuppetry, and legal threats. If it does turn out that the difficulties here persist, I think an RFCU would definitely be in order. alphachimp 04:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• All these accounts have already been blocked, so I'm closing the case. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)