User talk:Kloksmann

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kloksmann (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm not anyone's sockpuppet. I edited Wikipedia, once, from an internet cafe. It must be how my account was associated with another using the same IP.

Decline reason:

Based on the checkuser discussion below and the fact that you account edited from not one but two addresses at roughly the same times as known sockpuppets, I'm uncomfortable unblocking you. — - Philippe 15:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please stand by as I contact ~~the blocking admin~~ the checkuser responsible. Sandstein 19:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note he's actually edited several times since 2007. Blueboy 96 21:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's suggesting that he edited from the internet cafe once, not that he only edited once. - Philippe 05:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser evidence[edit]

It is difficult to discuss the specifics of the evidence while at the same time respecting the privacy policy and not disclosing IP or ISP information. (Kloksmann could waive this if he wanted to.) In general, all the accounts listed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Klaksonn share two ISPs, which I will designated Alpha and Beta.

Kloksmann's edits of 12 May are on Alpha, and are mingled with edits from the same day by Nasrulana (talk · contribs), FiveRupees (talk · contribs), LofaBot (talk · contribs) and Lcnj (talk · contribs) and are technically indistinguishable.
Five Rupees and Nasrulana edited from this particular IP address on and off over a span of 14 hours (with Kloksmann's edits in the middle of that span), an unusual time span for an internet cafe.
Kloksmann's edit of 7 June came from ISP Beta. He only made one logged-in edit but that IP has about 10 anonymous edits at the same general time, including some to articles that Nasrulana and Five Rupees have edited.
Nasrulana, Five Rupees and the other accounts listed use many IP addresses from ISPs Alpha and Beta, never keeping a single IP address for more than 24 hours. This is consistent with dynamic IP addressing. I have seen this frequently with residential addresses, but never before with legitimate businesses like internet cafes. That's not to say it's impossible that an internet cafe would have a dynamic address, but it is something I have not encountered before.
It is possible that at least one of the ISPs (Alpha) is in fact using dynamic addressing. Their press releases seem to indicate that they resell internet access to other in-country ISPs so that local ISPs don;t have to invest in their own infrastructure. So I can not rule out that at least Alpha may not only be dynamic but also shared. Even so, the occurrence of Nasrulana, Five Rupees and others on the same IPs at the same times over and over is strong evidence that they are the same. I suppose it is possible that Kloksmann's two edits on 12 May being on the same IP was a coincidence.
Ultimately checkuser is just a tool, and one can always make claims about shared access and so forth.
I think the evidence is pretty clear, but you can squeeze some reasonable doubt out of the situation simply because this is (to me) a foreign country and a foreign ISP and I know less about its internal workings than I would (for example) Comcast in the US, and I suppose its better to leave a sockpuppet account unblocked than to block a good user. Thatcher 12:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean leave a sockpuppet account blocked? Daniel Case (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to decline the unblock. He's edited from BOTH Alpha and Beta, which are shared by a known sock family. This account edited at the same time as a number of anonymous edits to articles frequented by the same sock family. This one doesn't pass the duck test, once Thatcher explained his evidence. Feel free to disagree, but I'm going to decline the unblock. - Philippe 15:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kloksmann (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Even if I was a sockpuppet, which I am not, look at my edits. Am I editing Wikipedia inappropriately or abusively?

Decline reason:

I am persuaded by Thatcher's evidence too, and sockpuppetry trumps all other considerations. Regardless of how constructive the edits were, this account is to remain blocked. — Daniel Case (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.