Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FergusM1970/Archive

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | FergusM1970


FergusM1970

04 August 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


FergusM1970 is using an IP sock to evade a 1RR restriction on a Troubles related article. As FergusM1970 is unable to revert using his account, we have a first then a second edit to remove a sourced term FergusM1970 objects to and has repeatedly edit warred to remove, then minutes later FergusM1970 makes his first edit of the day to the talk page. Highly convenient timing, especially considering the IPs edits to revert in exactly the same way as FergusM1970. 2 lines of K303 13:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"FergusM1970 is using an IP sock" - You seem awfully sure about that. I hope you have the evidence to back up your allegation or it could well come across as malicious.--FergusM1970 (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merely stating my opinion. I choose not to be too verbose when I'm busy. 2 lines of K303 14:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accusations of wrongdoing are not the place for stating your opinion. Next time you accuse me of something please confine yourself to the facts.--FergusM1970 (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
edit

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

Bring it on. Someone run Checkuser on my IP address so we can put this to bed.--FergusM1970 (talk) 13:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of fairness, of course, I think Checkuser should also be run on User:One_Night_In_Hackney. I'm sure he won't object to that.--FergusM1970 (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to open an SPI case, go right ahead. 2 lines of K303 14:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checkuser doesn't work that way. And checkuser won't be used here regardless, and it will not link IPs to addresses. If you think Hackney is a sock, then you need to stick your neck out by filing an SPI, providing diffs and naming a master, just like any other editor is expected to. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea if Hackney is a sock or not, but I'm very sure that I'm not using any. Is there anything I can do to help the admins get this frivolous complaint dealt with and closed as quickly as possible?--FergusM1970 (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
blah blah blah
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Well if you'd care to stop blocking me? 86.29.118.119 (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The accounts which are almost certainly you are now all stale. But of course there may be others, so bring it on. On the stale accounts, behavioural evidence is overwhelming. Intersted editors should spend a bit of time researching this. It's bloody galling that this guy Hackney spends his wp time doing nothing but reverting other users and making sock accusations, when beyond a shadow of a doubt he's one of the biggest sockers around. 86.29.147.215 (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Wrong! And just who are you a sock of Hackney? Your style is identical to at least two editors I could mention. You know, those editors that never add content, but just revert other editors all the time. You know who I'm talking about. 86.31.165.112 (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and there's massive other similarities between you and a couple of others I can think of (one now apparently retired). I can't believe no one has spotted this yet!!!!! 86.31.165.112 (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a flimsy allegation as part of a dispute. I also am stopped by 1RR from reverting the term "summarily executed". Why not accuse me of being a sockpuppet? This seems more like an attack on another editor and Fergus has shown no inclination to hide his many edits on this from what I can see.--Flexdream (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The complaint may be in good faith, although I have my doubts. However the anonymous editor in question wasn't even in the same country as me as Checkuser would show. Some further digging would show that I'm not using a proxy and, as I've just checked, neither is 86.23.124.57.--FergusM1970 (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fergus has made multiple edits using their account. Is it really a 'good faith' accusation to think they would suddenly start using an IP to make edits which obviously would be seen and undone so would have no effect? Why would they do that? What possible reason or motive would Fergus have to use an ip to made edits? --Flexdream (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
17 August 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Portugalpete is a so called "throwaway account" (see WP:SPA) that is now blocked indefinitely per consensus of uninvolved sysops in this AE thread. This account was created 3 days after the last SPI on FergusM1970 closed[1], and made three edits all reverts of User:One Night In Hackney. An interaction analysis[2] shows FergusM1970 and Portugalpete followed ONiH to the pages Proxy Bomb and Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign 1969–1997. The time between the 3 reverting one another at Proxy Bomb was 4 hours, the time on Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign 1969–1997 was 11 minutes.
It is possible that Portugalpete is not FergusM1970 and may be related to the previous IPs and/or A.N. other account engaged in edit-warring with ONiH. If that is the case I'd request a check for sleeper accounts created by Portugalpete--Cailil talk 14:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC) Cailil talk 14:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


I agree with Cailil's Checkuser request. That will put an end to this nonsense.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 14:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, checking the edit histories for both articles shows that ONIH and PortugalPete followed me to both articles. A minor point and I don't know if it makes any difference here, but I thought I should mention it.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 23:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
  •   Clerk endorsed - I'm torn, but endorsing. The time of day of the edits is different from Fergus's usual habits, except his edits during the same time frame, which match up. The timing of the reverts, so soon after his previous edits, in two different articles, is also interesting. Checkuser isn't magic pixie dust and can't exonerate or prove guilt, but it may shine some light here. I'm particularly interested in Portugalpete, who was already Arb blocked and it is very likely he is the sock of someone else, so if for no other reason, a CU seems warranted here for that sock, as he is a sock without a matching master. It is possible that this is meatpuppetry, or that Portugalpete is not related to FergusM1970, but there is no doubt that Portulalpete is connected to someone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You will have to go with what you got for now unless you have another sock in mind because these two are   Unrelated and nothing else is showing on CU. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point, it appears to be a series of interesting coincidences. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
23 May 2014
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

I would first like to publicly state that I have deliberately remained anonymous for this investigation and used a new account. I have done so because there is a long history of users being sued by the PR company that I suspect, supported with evidence, is behind this sock-puppetry campaign to alter this page. Since I do not wish to come into a legal battle for exposing dishonesty and a violation of rules on Wikipedia, I remain anonymous.

I first took notice of potential sock-puppetry on Derwick Associates due to several unwarranted, similar, reverting edits that were not discussed sufficiently on the talk page. Upon further investigation, the evidence becomes more clear. There are a number of users who appear to have an non-neutral bias. First of all, many of the users listed in the investigation have only made edits on this page or the related Alejandro Betancourt López page (every user under suspicion except FergusM1970, and Auric, has only ever edited on these related pages). Several of these accounts are already under suspicion and have been temporarily blocked. I believe these accounts to be linked in sock-puppetry or possibly in meatpuppetry. I believe the actions of this user (potentially users if it is a case of meatpuppetry) is to supersede the revert-edit limits per user and support their biased position that is likely sanctioned by a PR firm or the company itself.

Previous investigations

There have been previous investigations into suspected sock-puppetry (potentially meat-puppetry) involving these users, namely FergusM1970. In these investigations, the technical evidence of CheckUser could not establish the IP Addresses as directly linked, but the behavioral evidence was very strong. However, after much deliberation, it was decided that despite the strong behavioral evidence, there was not enough to prove that it was a sock-puppetry scheme.

Nonetheless, as time has passed, I believe there is further evidence leading to the conclusion that these accounts are linked in an effort to avoid detection and support each others edits. This is why I believe a CheckUser is necessary, since there are now more user accounts in question it is possible some of them may be found to be linked.

Dates and time

After reviewing the edit history on the page, there are no overlapping dates and times for edits made by these users, indicating that they may very well have been made by one single user using several accounts. Since the pages creation, these users have had no timing conflicts to indicate anything that they may truthfully be different users.Here is a rough chronological list of the users activity indicating that they never overlapped with each other over the pages history:

  • IP Address: 113.244.145.226 :11/28/2012 04:46:00
  • IP Address: 124.116.15.247 :11/28/2012 05:03:00
  • IP Address: 186.24.34.178 :11/29/2012 00:40:00
  • FinanceReferee :Nov 29, 2012 10:04 PM, DEC 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 13
  • ChanceryLanePartners :01/17/2013 12:45:00
  • Jarrodjones :01/21/2013 18:39:00
  • Arctic M :Jan 21, 2013 9:29 PM, Jan 24, 2013
  • FergusM1970 :Feb 4, 2013 8:06 PM, Feb 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 28. Mar 4-Apr 12
  • AlekBoydVenezuela :04/13/2013 10:12:00
  • IP Address: 77.89.172.57 :04/15/2013 10:39:00
  • IP Address: 94.197.127.205 :04/15/2013 22:13:00
  • FergusM1970 :Apr 16, 2013 3:18 PM. Apr 18, Apr 20, May 6, 28, 30. Jun 1
  • Tony3485 :Oct 28, 2013 12:38 PM. Oct 31, Nov 5
  • Majogomezsz :Dec 4, 8:34, Feb 24, 2014 2:50, Mar 11
  • Tony3485 :Dec 5, 19. Feb 13, 2014, Feb 24 3:41 PM
  • IP Address: 85.48.107.158 :Mar 28, Mar 29 8:28, then again after 1:15 PM
  • Auric :Mar 29 12:27 PM - 12:41 PM, Apr 1
  • Tony3485 :Mar 31 (an hour later Majogomezsz), Apr 4, 6, 11
  • 15cpw :04/15/2014
  • Venezolano2014 :04/21/2022 01:19:00
  • Naruto2839 :Apr 22 2:57
  • Eleonora Venezuela :May 5 4:24 PM
  • The power of jimmy :May 5 11:30 PM
  • Lucrezia Venezuela :May 7 3:02 PM
  • IP Address: 81.202.249.253, a new one-time user, made a large edit on April 22, 2014 to the talk page for Derwick associates, agreeing with the other accounts in question and contributed nothing more.
  • Goamerica25, also a one-time user, removed details on Diosdado Cabello that pertained to Derwick on April 23, 2014.
  • Termita20, also a one-time user, made edits critical to Thor Halvorssen for his involvement in investigating Derwick's operations and used a non-RS source, and made no talk page discussion.
Similar wording of edit history

In addition, the wording of the edit summary for these various users is highly similar. They are usually antagonistic to other users' edits and do not reflect the actual change the user made. Here are some examples:

  • 124.116.15.247: "Previous page contains defamation and inaccurate information temporally article posted to remove such content"
  • 186.24.34.178: "Previous page contains defamation and inaccurate information temporally article posted to remove such content"
  • 85.48.107.158: "This information is defamatory and malicious"
    • "completely defamatory and malicious"
    • "malicious information the link does not proof a thing"
  • FergusM1970: "One would assume that any company handed a huge amount of money to build power stations would be subjected to scrutiny; they certainly are in the UK. This looks like it was added to further the aims of an attack page";
    • "Removing sources that add nothing to the article and probably aren't reliable anyway"
    • "Removing material from unreliable sources"
    • " Dubious sources, doesn't seem to add much. Would be interesting and relevant if they were suing Batiz and Boyd, but as it is? No."
  • Majogomezsz: "Change irrelevant information"
  • Tony3485: "The reference does not work and the information can not be proved",
    • "difamatory. I've already posted the link regarding this issue",
    • "This information is not accurate, there is no report nor condemn, this is just difamtory and libel"
    • "The eliminated text had no references to proof."
    • "This information is defamatory and not real according to other references"
    • " According to new references the statements are tendenciuos"
  • Goamerica25: "Removed tabloid-level news reports. 1) there is no good evidence, 2) the sources are not reliable or objective enough as journalism outlets and, 3) the first claim especially, has been completely refuted"
  • ChanceryLanePartners: "Content alignment with Court Injunction. Do not edit without prior consent."
  • FinanceReferee: "Add information about amended complaint which includes this wikipedia page"
    • "Removed unsubstatiated and non NPOV language"
    • "remove inaccurate and unsupported charge that prosecutors made this claim"
    • "remove unsustantiated allegations, provide refuting proof link"
  • Naruto2839: "This is absurd. 27.122.12.* I´m not making any reversion, I´m just trying to put some balance and order into this article. I can discuss whatever you want but stop reversing my changes"
  • The power of jimmy: "Innocent until proven guilty principle of wikipedia. Wikipedia does not validate individual accusations"
Content

The content that each of these users adds or removes from this page is also similar. They often seek to remove any details that may be seen as antagonistic to the company's image, leading to the rational speculation that they serve some agenda and seek to appear as multiple editors agreeing on a certain outcome of the page. They have made repeated attempts to revert the page to versions that are missing massive details about the company's wrongdoing. They rarely participate in talk page discussions and all work to the same end goal. Throughout the edit history of these suspected editors, they have routinely reverted edits made by other users unwarranted in an effort to remove any antagonistic details about the company and bolster up a positive image.

The editors have all tried to remove details about the allegations of corruption and bribery against the company in regards to its bidding for Venezuelan government contracts. They also sought to cover up certain details that support the allegations of corruption, such as the Derwick executives having virtually no experience building power plants despite being rewarded the contracts, the payments and gifts received by government officials, and overbilling by the company. Details about investigations into corruption, both within Venezuela and internationally, as well as details about the threats received by journalists seeking to investigate these allegations, were removed as well. They attempted to remove both details linking the company to politicians and officials who were linked to corruption scandals and also details about the founding and establishment of the company that indicated how little experience they had and how many political connections they had. There were large details about the legal activity that followed from this that these users also attempted to remove or revert. They generally sought to remove all the cases of corruption against the company from the page while keeping the details about the company's cases it filed against its critics. During the early edits of the page, several of these users attempted to have the page deleted when they could not successfully remove antagonistic details permanently. However, since this was unsuccessful, they continued on trying to delete the details pertaining to corruption. When established users reverted their edits on good grounds, a new user would join the dialogue, attempting to aid in the effort to revert the edits.

Here is a list of diff page examples:

On Alejandro Betancourt, many of the same users were involved and made edits to remove any details that were antagonistic to Betancourt and to the company, Derwick Associates. Other users had attempted to provide information, through reliable sources, about the accusations of bribery to obtain Venezuelan government contracts and corruption. These edits were combated by the listed users in question and were attempted to be completely removed with no substantial discussion on the talk page. When these edits were reverted, another user would come in and attempt to remove the same details that were antagonistic to Betancourt and Derwick.

For Diosdado Cabello, a one-time user attempted to remove details about his involvement with Derwick and the accusations of bribery and corruption in order to secure government contracts for Derwick. The user has only ever made this one edit.

Since Thor Halvorssen Mendoza has an open case against Derwick and, as an activist writer, has been involved in published articles critical of Derwick and its associates, he is a likely target of antagonism from the same users that would attempt to protect the Derwick pages. For instance, a one-time user made a non-RS, non-NPOV, edit attempting to claim that Halvorssen is purposefully misreporting to defame the company.

It is for these reasons that I believe these users, certainly some of them, are linked in a large sock-puppetry scheme to circumvent Wikipedia guidelines and work for their own specific agenda. In other words, this looks like a duck. I am requesting that Wikipedia administrators continue this investigation and uncover any abusers of Wikipedia policy. I am more than open to suggestions or requests to provide further evidence and assistance in uncovering the truth. Carabobo1821 (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

"I would first like to publicly state that I have deliberately remained anonymous for this investigation and used a new account"

WTF? You created a sockpuppet to accuse me of sockpuppetry with? Comedy gold.

If anyone actually feels like investigating this, feel free. Run CheckUser. Hell, come round my house; you can have a beer and check all my system logs. You'll find nothing linking me to sockpuppetry, because there's nothing to find. So, beyond noting the somewhat coincidental timing of this epic diatribe, I have nothing more to say. --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 17:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I do have one more thing to say. A sockpuppet investigation to uncover any links between Carabobo1821 and Justiciero1811 might be both interesting and productive.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 19:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And one more thing (I know, I know). I don't know if this will affect CheckUser, but since the edits that Justiciero1811 is complaining about I've changed both ISP and internet hardware type (from DSL to cable) so my IP address is going to be different from what it was then. That may make any checks on my user identity pointless; as I say, I don't know exactly how it works. If I can help in any way feel free to email me.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 19:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, congratulations on submitting such a comprehensive report. I would like to state that I am neither a sockpuppet nor sock master, and certainly not of FergusM1970. I see no evidence linking me to any of the others mentioned and find myself puzzled as to how I was caught up in this.--Auric talk 22:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty ironic really, seeing as he's admitted creating sockpuppets himself. I have no idea where this rubbish has slithered out from or why, especially now. He's had a YEAR to raise any concerns.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 05:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
  • Case may be valid, but is too damn complicated. Could you please provide:
  1. 1 explanatory diff per user
  2. Sort out users who have edited in the last three months, and are non IPs, to make determining the need for checkuser much more straightforward.

Thanks a lot, NativeForeigner Talk 10:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent events

edit

In light of recent developments that confirm this user was a paid advocate for Derwick Associates can we reopen these investigations? This is evidence to believe that some of the accounts also active on the Derwick page are in fact his socks or, more likely, are the socks of a PR firm that also hired Fergus to aid in their campaign.

In the past couple months I've been reading up and have found some interesting peculiarities. Although Fergus was paid to protect these pages I believe it is a part of a larger campaign. And now that we KNOW FergusM1970, who was previously under suspicion for his activity on these pages, WAS IN FACT A PAID ADVOCATE BY DERWICK ASSOCIATES no one can continue ignoring the gravity of this situation. This billion dollar company is clearly protecting its image by hiring somebody to edit these pages.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Righteousskills (talk • contribs) 04:10, 6 January 2015‎

01 August 2015

edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Potential:

What made me think twice

edit

Two edits in the same topic area, randomly selected. These aren't especially remarkable on their own.

User:FergusM1970
Special:Contributions/92.12.66.90

But when combined with edits on this article they suddenly become much more interesting:

  • [5] – Page create
  • [6] – Edit
Related:

I started suspecting the user was on a dynamic IP range here:

This range is again back at:

All are from the same ISP.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 23:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence on accounts

edit

I believe this user has a great number of throwaway accounts, so banning each individual one will not result in much effect. The defining factor here is the way these accounts have been working on the same subsets of articles, all of which FergusM1970 was banned for engaging in paid editing for.

FergusM1970 (talk · contribs) – BLOCKED

  • Last ecig edit before permanent ban [12]

OutOfCheeseError (talk · contribs) – BLOCKED
Banned for abusing multiple accounts and editing on electronic cigarettes

Jonlindhe (talk · contribs) SPA: [[14]]
Created one of only three articles that link to Jerome Katz, a colleague:

  • [15] – Page created

DaleCurrie (talk · contribs) One edit on a rather non-visible article about ecigs:

Lancer2K (talk · contribs) Limited edits, mainly on ecigs:

TheNorlo (talk · contribs) Single purpose account only involved in Electronic cigarettes, increased editing post FergusM1970's ban

Merlin 1971 (talk · contribs) Another SPA on ecigs, formerly very active

Evidence on IPs

edit

To be expanded

Comments by other users

edit

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

Please allow for a few days so I can get the proper information. I actually find the IP edits to be more important. The accounts are throwaway, while the entire IP ranges 89.204.135.XXX–89.204.139.XXX & 89.15.235.XXX–89.15.239.XXX may be involved. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Vanjagenije: I have now listed a number of randomly selected diffs from the users. It was not possible for certain of them due to the fact that many of the diffs in question were new page creations. This is only a very small start at the evidence that exists in this case. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanjagenije: I will expand it when I have time. I have found this process to be extremely time-consuming.
Now there is also a diff for FergusM9170s activity on electronic cigarettes, as for the diffs you mention do not indicate socking, I believe you will find SPAs engagement is similar to what FergusM1970 did.
I did not realize that starting a sockpuppet investigation would be a one man effort. I was hoping a checkuser could look into the case so that I wouldn't have to waste time going through 150 different IPs before knowing if there was any validity to the claims. This is a known sockpuppeteer who has for several years made a living off undisclosed paid editing. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanjagenije: Could you clarify what that means and why it would allow a known sockpuppeteer to remain at large? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The data is not lost. Everyone knows the IPs and original account originate from Germany. A checkuser can be done with the IPs that start with 89. I have more evidence but I cannot provide that evidence on Wikipedia otherwise he will change his behaviour. @CFCF:, do not present the solid evidence on Wikipedia for obvious reasons. QuackGuru (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support this being closed for now and am intent on recreated a more full report. Being unfamiliar with the process and with limited time I treated this page as a draft of sorts, and some of the accounts listed may not be involved. I know there is significant evidence available and therefore I will not be abandoning it, but it may be more effective to simply restart. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 19:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't what I said, but fine. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vanjagenije, the evidence was submitted. It can be run against the 89 IPs. QuackGuru (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lets wait instead and present everything at once. I meant there isn't a lack of evidence, just that we need to present it much better. Lets do it once we have more time. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CU request

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit
  •   Additional information needed - @CFCF and QuackGuru: 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..
@CFCF: Sure. Technical data that is used by the CheckUser is deleted after few months. And, FergusM1970 has not edited for 8 months, so his data is lost. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • @QuackGuru: and @CFCF: - because of the fact that CU can't see data you need to make a case based on strong behavioural evidence in a clearly laid out report. Also please don't use this section for conversation it's for patrolling admins, clerks and CUs - I've moved your comments accordingly - please reply in that section--Cailil talk 01:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FergusM1970/Archive&oldid=1145955001"