Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Edinburghgeo/Archive

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | Edinburghgeo


Edinburghgeo

28 November 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Based on editing behaviour at G5 (education) I strongly suspect many or all of the above to be controlled by the same person or organisation. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
03 December 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

New account turns up to a AfD after the creator took a block for socking. Mtking (edits) 13:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you also add Maria1357, another new user who has just posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G5 (education) with a very similar writing style and (lack of) argument.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
03 December 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Same as before; first and only edit at the AfD created by block evading user and his sock. Mtking (edits) 20:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
23 January 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Further to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Edinburghgeo/Archive I believe that, based on identical editing behaviour at G5 (education), the above IPs and account are further socks. There is also the same issue of conflict of interest, with the sockmaster having an apparent close connection to the University of Edinburgh. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

Without commenting on the IPs, Saariselka1 is a   Likely match to previous accounts. TNXMan 14:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

07 February 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Blocked per duck, after a suggestion on an ANI thread, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ivalo2. The writing style of Ivalo2's edit summaries is exactly the same as the master and Edinburghgeog (improper grammar, quick spelling with improper contractions and lower case, frequent comma splices). Perhaps CU is helpful for future evidence, so I marked the box "yes". Drmies (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
14 February 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


I believe that Penang100 is another connected troll account in this series of socks. The username is very similar to my own, being a S.E. Asian city followed by a number, the editor has reverted me on two wholly unconnected articles, has posted a message on my Talkpage relating to the G5 (education) article ([1]) (an article closely related to the sock issue) and uses similar phrasing in edit summaries. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Rangoon11 (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
10 March 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


I strongly suspect that this is another of this series of troll accounts (per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Edinburghgeo/Archive), based upon user name (place number + number format) and editing behaviour at HeidelbergCement ([[2]]), University College London ([[3]]) and Development geography.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC) Rangoon11 (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. This is wrong from Rangoon11. I noticed, and in addition s/he also acknowledged that they were wrong over an issues regarding US/UK English. I checked back to see what the outcome was, finding that consensus was with what I thought, and that Rangoon was wrong. I would also like to point out, I did not start either dispute. I simply scanned though a list of recent contributions by Rangoon, after attempting to see what the 'result' was for the language issue, relating to construction materials. I have also found that Rangoon has in many times declared 'ownership' over articles, and has received warnings for edit warring. S/He never seems to discuss anything, and frequently goes down the 'block' way, instead of simply discussing it on the talk page. Also, no I don't study at Edinburgh University, I actually study Geography and Economics at UCL, hence why I was interested in the article. Thanks. 13tallinn (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The chance of two of your first eight article edits being edits which reverted edits of mine on two wholly unconnected articles is infinitesimal. The way in which you then made the same reverting edit at University College London whilst not logged in has in any case given you away. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rangoon11, if you are so sure, then why can't you simply provide the diffs as asked. Why, because I haven't done anything wrong.13tallinn (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

e/c And of course, since you edited the HeidelbergCement article before editing the University College London article, you are actually propsing a one in a billion coincidence that, just like the Edinburghgeo sockmaster, you are also connected with the geography department of a UK university, in addition to all of the other conincidences concerning your username, editing behaviour, the fact that a University of Edinburgh-based IP made exactly the same edit as you to the University College London artice within the space of 4 hours etc. Stop being a troll and contibute constructively to this project, or go away.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, on both edits I have undone, I have have not been unconstructive on either. If you don't like things changing, set up your own website. Regarding the name thing, that's meaningless 13tallinn (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
  •   Check declined by a checkuser. In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
  1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this.

--(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided diffs above, what more am I supposed to do? In any case common sense indicates clearly to me that this is another connected account - the same pattern of username, date of account creation, the same behaviour of reverting edits of mine on articles on wholly unconnected topics, and of also editing in geography-related topics (the sockmaster is connected with the Geography department of the University of Edinburgh).Rangoon11 (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And further confirmation - an IP from the University of Edinburgh has just made the same edit: [4].Rangoon11 (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As is stated quite clearly above, please provide at least one diff from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 18:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This [[5]] and this [[6]] show the similar pattern of behaviour of the most recently blocked account in this series, reverting edits of mine on wholly unconnected articles. All of these accounts are troll accounts controlled by a user closely connected with the geography department of the University of Edinburgh. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Likely that, all things considered, the following accounts are related:

Rangoon11, please bear in mind that statements that are not backed up with evidence, such as "All of these accounts are troll accounts" are not helpful for the processing of cases, and are ignored when it comes to evaluating whether or not a check can be carried out. In this case, you are lucky that the user acted extremely suspiciously regarding the handling of this case, because the evidence you provided was not sufficient to warrant a check. Please provide more coherent evidence in future cases or the case may be declined. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

13tallinn blocked by me and Dnalnifa (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) blocked by JPGordon. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this delightful individual has just made it quite clear on my talk page that they are intending to continue a campaign of sockpuppetry, stating that "i have over 50 operating, so think youve got me, im now thinking more long term, operating a set of sleepers with no spam under a seperate VPN connection!!, over come time, they will launch an attack against the biggest prize, removing Rangoon11 from wikipedia, and changing the g5 article." ([[7]]). I ask that this situation which I am facing - with the individual making crystal clear that I am a target of their sockpuppetry - be taken into account if and when I am required to initiate any further SPI investigations. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Query: are the connected IPs also going to be blocked i.e. 129.215.4.232 (following this edit on my talk page [[8]] and 129.215.4.22 (following this edit in support of 13tallinn at Univeristy College London [[9]])? Both are also based at the University of Edinburgh. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
01 April 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Blackcurrents (talk · contribs) posts an unblock request to their user talk approximately 20 minutes after account creation. The unblock request reads similarly to this unblock request which is PhoenixJHudson (talk · contribs)'s first edit after account creation. PhoenixJHudson (talk · contribs) admits being Rihannano1fan (talk · contribs). Rihannano1fan is Iluvrihanna24. The Iluvrihanna24-to-Rihannano1fan move may have been a name change. Blackcurrents has no editing history other than their user talk, but neither did PhoenixJHudson and if you look over their user talk you can what an incredible time sink that was. Tiderolls 16:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

I've left comments at Blackcurrents's talk page. Elockid (Talk) 16:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per evidence from other venues that I have, and the comments made on BC's talk, I don't think they are related, but I wouldn't put too much faith in my statement.   Clerk endorsed for a final statement of whose's sock we have, and any sleepers, and any blocked over the course of the user talk engagement. Also for a second opinion as Elockid invited for. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 13:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How fortuitous that it ended up being me that handled this case. Blackcurrents seems unrelated to many other accounts on one of the IPs, but is related to 13tallinn, a blocked user from a case I handled; see this SPI case for more info. At present I see no need for a check on PhoenixJHudson, as they've already admitted a connection to another account and checkuser can do no more than confirm that. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

27 April 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

There has been a long history of sockpuppetry and harrassment by an individual connected to the University of Edinburgh. The behaviour has centred on the G5 (education) article. The individual concerned has stated that they will seek to harrass me with the aim of making me leave the project: [10]. These two edits by the above University of Edinburgh-based IP are clearly in reaction to the G5 article having been protected earlier today: [11] and [12]. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

Blocked 31 hours. --MuZemike 19:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

28 April 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

There has been a long history of sockpuppetry and harrassment (of myself) by an individual connected to the University of Edinburgh. The behaviour has centred on the G5 (education) article. The individual concerned has stated that they will seek to harrass me with the aim of making me leave the project: [13]. This revert today is clearly yet more of the same from this individual [14]. Is there anything that can be done by means of a range block to stop this behaviour?Rangoon11 (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC) Rangoon11 (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just added another University of Edinburgh IP address based on this edit: [15]. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

I was right to undo his posts, Rangoon11 had undone good edits. You shouldnt cry troll if its an edit you dont like. I left a message on your talk page, a kind offer to sort out our problems. But as ever you come hear rather than to me.----

Somewhat against my better judgement I actually did change the G5 (education) article yesterday to include England. And yet your response has simply been yet more trolling on other articles. What a thoroughly nasty piece of work you are. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Completed: I've put a rangeblock in place that should stop the majority of the problems. The Cavalry (Message me) 01:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is some xwiki stuff also but I'll deal with that. fr33kman 01:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Edinburghgeo/Archive&oldid=1138670214"