Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Maiden City/Archive

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | The Maiden City


The Maiden City

The Maiden City (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date April 20 2009, 23:56 (UTC)
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by O Fenian (talk)


The IP listed above is blocked until 11:15, 24 April 2009 due to disruption. I believe The Maiden City is the same editor, using a previously created account to circumvent this block. Similarly the IP editing pre-dating the unblocking of The Maiden City was circumventing the indefinite block on that account.

The Maiden City has edited precisely three articles, Free Derry, Eglinton, County Londonderry, and City of Derry Airport (plus one edit to Derry I overlooked). These are the exact three articles that the IP has edited most. Both articles share the same extreme views on the Derry/Londonderry name dispute and are not shy about using talk pages as soapboxes for their bigoted views.

Hopefully people will notice in the diatribe below that there is no denial of sockpuppetry, although there is a subtle admission. His first sentence is "I have already complained about the activities of the editor known as O Fenian", where exactly? There is no such complaint in his contributions. Perhaps he means his reply minutes earlier on WP:AE, but that is unlikely since there he says I have already reported O FEnian as a Troll due to his actions. So where is this complaint? Perhaps here or here or here, all of which were complaints from the IP? The Maiden City was blocked at 18:01, 28 October 2008, the IP stopped editing at 17:46, 28 October 2008, almost certainly due to the autoblock. O Fenian (talk) 10:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by The Maiden City

I have already complained about the activities of the editor known as O Fenian. He has already been warned and then blocked for violating 3RR on articles which I have edited. He constantly disrupts my edits and has taken it upon himself to carry on an edit war against me using all and any tools available.

For the record, my views are neither extreme nor bigoted, they reflect the truth which editors like O Fenian find unpalatable. His failure to acknowledge the truth reveals his own bigoted views on all things Republican.

This editor has ony one agenda and that is to prevent me challenging his pro-Republican one-sided propaganda which have been incorporated into many of the Irish articles.

I am suspicious that O Fenian and another editor called BigDunc are complicit in the edit warring and attacks against me since I commenced to challenge their views. I feel that their activities must be against the spirit of Wikipedia and have both reported O Fenian and warned Big Dunc in connection with their activities. This report is their pathetic attempt to get back at me.

I challenge anyone to disprove any of the edits that I have made because they are all based on first hand life experiences. --The Maiden City (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by other users
I issued the unblock to the account. No one had identified the IP as the same user so I was unaware that he had been constantly evading a block. I've now revoked that unblock request. I do not consider using an IP to edit "sockpuppetry" but it certainly is block evasion. Mangojuicetalk 11:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  •   Clerk note: First edits from IP occur 1 day before the block of the account. Return to request unblock of account occurs shortly after a 1 week block of the IP. Quacking rather loudly. Mayalld (talk) 07:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

  Completed There may be a difference of opinion as to whether an IP can be a sock, but as it has been used in a manner entirely identical to a sock account, I think we can call a spade a spade here. All tagged. Mayalld (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Mayalld (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date July 3 2009, 00:13 (UTC)
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by O Fenian

A new account has come along, and is behaving in an equally disruptive manner to The Maiden City, with many common behavioural traits. The editor uses talk pages as soapboxes in a similar way to The Maiden City, in particular with relation to soapboxing about Martin McGuinness. Both accounts share the unusual habit of amending the time on signatures, examples [1] [2] [3] [4]. De Unionist described User:Canterbury Tail as "Mr Bell" which refers to his username prior to De Unionist allegedly editing Wikipedia, although The Maiden City is well aware of both names as can be seen here and here.

As well as the static IP - 78.33.101.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) which is currently blocked, various dynamic IPs were also used by The Maiden City, listed below to aid the investigation.

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
  This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Blocked and tagged. As for the IP range, the range is a /15, so it's probably not practical to range block. The smallest range is a /16, but you'd need a checkuser to assess collateral damage if you wish to go down that route. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date September 10 2009, 10:15 (UTC)
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by O Fenian

This is the latest in a series of accounts, mostly blocked for username violations. First was Fenian Hunter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which when username blocked created Papist Hunter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). When that was rightfully blocked, three more accounts were created including the currently active one. The account shows knowledge of general sanctions that a new account should not know about, such as this claiming Derry is under 1RR restriction (there is no message on the talk page saying that), and 1RR is not something new editors would know about. The editing style, area and general sectarian bigotry are identical to The Maiden City, and other editors agree it is probably a sockpuppet. O Fenian (talk) 10:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
  This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date January 15 2010, 23:42 (UTC)
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
edit
Evidence submitted by O Fenian
edit

IP editor is fixated on a small number of articles, two of them being Eglinton, County Londonderry and City of Derry Airport. In particular there's the attempts from both to remove the Irish name of the former, such as this edit claiming "There is no Irish name for Eglinton being of English/Norman extraction" which is a virtually identical argument to this edit claiming that "Eglinton does not have an Irish translation as it is a unique Norman name". Similarly the recent addition of eglintononline.com as an external link has previously been made by a different sockpuppet. Also makes inflammatory and BLP violating comments about Martin McGuinness in the same way as previous sockpuppets. O Fenian (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added 81.149.129.5 based on their one edit being to Eglinton to make the same edit as the other IP. O Fenian (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties
edit

See Defending yourself against claims.

User O Fenian most definitely needs some help to get over his fixations!

I am glad to see that I am apparently not the only one to see such bias editing when it comes to Northern Ireland and the Londonderry area in particular. As a matter of record, there is no Irish translation for the name of Eglinton. The name being applied wrongly in support of an Irish translation is Irish for Muff, a name which was previously used for the village many centuries ago. it is simply through political expediency that certain editors are wilfully adding a wrong name to this article. This is political vandalism at its nastiest! --81.187.71.75 (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to Limavady and Benevenagh mountain, this is the recognised proper name for the mountain as stated by all local Government agencies. The name Binevenagh is an Irish corruption of the name and should be used as an alternative and not as the main index. --81.187.71.75 (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The continued removal of a valid link, namely History of Eglinton is vandalism by those very accusers who accuse me. --81.187.71.75 (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

Who was it that 81.187.71.75 has been talking too? Could it be another sock? --Domer48'fenian' 10:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those two IP accounts are being annoying, with the deliberate disruptions. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This IP has also been both disruptive in the edit of Limavady regarding the spelling of a local mountain and also abusive to me and another editor: User talk:81.187.71.75 and here Talk:Eglinton, County Londonderry. Bjmullan (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
edit

  Clerk note: The main account is already blocked for indef, and one of the IPs is also blocked. The remaining IP has only made one edit, thus I'm unsure a block would be very useful at this point. Resubmit the case should more accounts or IPs appear. NJA (t/c) 09:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date March 29 2010, 15:55 (UTC)
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
edit


Evidence submitted by O Fenian
edit

A "new" account has cropped up hitting the usual Maiden City articles (City of Derry Airport and Eglinton, County Londonderry) as well as Londonderry, New Hampshire, in which the 81.187.71.75 IP (known to be The Maiden City, and needs to be reblocked regardless) is also involved in a dispute there. The typical daily online times match the IP and previous accounts, the articles are the usual targets, and there's the usual attempts to push a point-of-view such as this edit with the "no apparent links" change. O Fenian (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties
edit

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
edit
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
edit

  Administrator note Blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 19:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
22 September 2010
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
edit


Evidence submitted by O Fenian
edit

Usual fixation on the two articles The Maiden City and previous sockpuppets were obsessed with - Eglinton, County Londonderry and City of Derry Airport - as well as stalking my edits on other articles. The first IP was blocked, the second IP carried on with more of the same the next day. O Fenian (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added Blue is better (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) based on that account and the latest IP both editing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LevenBoy in a similar way to express the usual abuse associated with The Maiden City, plus both of them edit warring on Conkers. O Fenian (talk) 09:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The other IPs are not added by me but are quite obvious. I have not added any account other than Blue is better, other people can deal with whatever evidence they feel is acceptable. O Fenian (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence submitted by NorthernCounties
edit
  1. Both users began editing around the same period, both of which extremely fixated on City of Derry Airport, edits generally occur at the same times also, and then [5] appears similar to [6] Similar phrases being used by both alias' —Preceding unsigned comment added by NorthernCounties (talk • contribs) 12:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Just noticed another mannerism which is distinct for both Factocop and the unregistered IP's. If one looks here at all their edits, you will notice that all accounts fail to indent, if we look at other editors they remember to provide the right number of ":" to help with ease of reading. Coincedence? --NorthernCounties (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Even further proof: [7] & [8], Has Maiden City become clumsey in his veteran wiki days? S/he couldn't hand us better proof if he tried, --NorthernCounties (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence submitted by Asarlaí
edit

The sockpuppetry by this user is laughably obvious. His habit is protesting against Irish names on articles; focusing on Eglinton, City of Derry Airport and Giant's Causeway. Factocop began editing on 13 September, and the IPs began editing between 21 and 24 September. Almost all of the edits by these IPs have been done to back-up each-other or Factocop. Almost all of the edits have been on the aforesaid articles and their talkpages—they either revert the articles to Factocop's preferred version or back-up his arguments on talkpages. Only two of the IPs made edits before 21 September—the .44 IP made one edit in 2007 while the .186 IP made one in 2006 and one in 2008. As NorthernCounties has noted, Factocop and the IPs also use similar posting style and similar phrases—for example forgetting to indent and calling editors "pro-republican". All of the similarities are plain to see in the edit histories. ~Asarlaí 12:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   
edit

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
edit

User continuously edit wars on two articles City of Derry Airport and Eglinton, and gets agressive when his/her edits are disputed. Classically characteristic of Maiden City. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NorthernCounties (talk • contribs)


Got agree that the evidence points to a high level of socking which is damaging the whole WP project. Action needs to be taken quickly on this case. Bjmullan (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My input may be late and a decision already reached however i want to add to it anyways:
This user appears to have no intention of playing by the book. They have let what appears to be personal extreme ideals and beliefs supercede sources, reasonability and neutrality. Going by their edits they are of the same political direction as i am, though they are of the more hard-lined ignorant end of it whilst i am of the more moderate liberal end of it. Their actions only have served to possibly increase division and incite problems. If they acted maturely they could be an asset to Wikipedia but i think they are years away from reaching such a stage and the indefinite bans are far more than justified. Mabuska (talk) 00:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
edit

  Clerk note: Absolutely hideously huge range. (no go on rangeblock) NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 06:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Factocop and Blue is better are   Confirmed with regards to each other. All other The Maiden City socks are   Stale, so I cannot establish a definitive technical connection with that. However, one may be able to clearly establish a connection with behavioral evidence. As far as the ranges used, I blocked one range for a brief time, but otherwise he's hopping to much all over the place to control the socking. Semi-protection may be necessary if worse comes to worse. –MuZemike 17:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marking for close. TNXMan 13:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
27 September 2010
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
edit



Evidence submitted by O Fenian
edit

Suspicious "new" account leaping right into the Giant's Causeway discussion that previous sockpuppets were involved in, then makes this edit to LevenBoy's talk page which looks very suspicious. References to "O Fenian and friends" are also very suspicious. O Fenian (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   
edit

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
edit
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
edit

  Confirmed that this account is the same as Factocop (talk · contribs), who was previously blocked as a sock. TNXMan 15:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

08 October 2010
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
edit


Evidence submitted by O Fenian
edit

Two new Plusnet (TMC's known ISP, or one of them that is used frequently by him) are edit warring on Real Irish Republican Army to retain information originally added by another Plusnet IP, judging by the IP's (and other stale similar IPs) participation this discussion it was added by a Maiden City sockpuppet, almost certainly making the Plusnet IPs edit warring to retain it in a form that violates WP:BLPNAME Maiden City sockpuppets as well. Semi-protection of the article concerned would probably be the most obvious solution I think? O Fenian (talk) 09:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

87.114.85.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) added, the administrator who blocked the previously active IPs (and others that popped up after) is away for 24 hours. O Fenian (talk) 10:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've got another hour online ;-) Latest one blocked. TMC claims familiarity with policy - it's a shame they can't grasp the basics of an "indefinite block". TFOWR 10:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties   
edit

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
edit
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
edit
  • Could this be closed? The above IPs are all likely stale (and were probably blocked by me at the time). The Maiden City is now subject to a community ban: I'd suggest that future socking can be dealt with by WP:DUCK blocks and/or WP:RFPP. The Maiden City isn't the most subtle of trolls... TFOWR 09:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concur but perhaps its time for an abuse report for the ISP? Also User:De Maiden City seems to have a prima facie relationship to TMC, but from a (very) quick perusal of their contribs I'm unsure--Cailil talk 12:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Possibly, though I'm sceptical as to how effective an abuse report would be. For what it's worth, I've just blocked De Maiden City (talk · contribs) - they're either impersonating another user, or they're socking. TFOWR 13:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • An abuse report to the ISP? How funny :) I can tell you quite categorically that the person who picked it up would bin it immediately, with a rye smile. Unless you're talking about serious, potentially crime related matters, or real abuse and I mean real, hard stuff, they're not going to be interested in the slightest. Multiple accounts on Wikipedia with the level of so-called abuse here; from the point of view of the ISP it's just harmless fun. The Roman Candle (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/The_Maiden_City/Archive&oldid=1257816289"