User:X1\/Springee&HughD

See related later issue:


 * Wikipedia:Teahouse#Odd behavior by an editor (created 21:08, 25 June 2019)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Sockpuppet investigations/HughD archived to Sockpuppet investigations/HughD/Archive #12 January 2018 (twice?) and Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations archived to Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archives/Archive20 #Has this process gone off-the-rails, or just this situation?

After stranger Springee's attempted character assassination ambush, then another assault follows, see User:Coffee ... with User talk:Coffee by User:Springee (11:28, 1 February 2018) then Coffee self-reverts "blocked indefinitely" (17:57, 1 February 2018‎) User:Coffee goes on "wikibreak" (mostly starting 15:08, 2 February 2018, ending 10:59, 13 February 2018) but does not self-revert mess they made of my edits. Reverted them myself over two week period at Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2018 Q1 (1) and Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (en mass) No apology either.

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

The new suspected sock is. The other accounts are blocked HughD socks. These accounts were all created late summer/fall of 2017. X\1 was created in August. The user account was started with the same start pages HughD used with his recent IP and sock accounts. Like HughD's previous sock accounts we have a "new" editor who immediately knows how to navigate wikipedia editing and is working on templates and tags in less than 48 hours. The editor, like HughD is making a large number of edits per day though not not as single article focused as HughD.

Editor interaction log between HughD and X1\[] shows a lot of articles in common. The focus is on climate change and politics. Edits include HughD hot topics like the Koch bothers.

HughD created a Propublica template (evidence here []). As I mentioned in a previous investigation it was only used by HughD, known HughD socks and an IP account suspected of being a HughD sock. Here is X1\ editing a propublica template entry []

HughD had a Chicago related interst. X1\ has edited the Chicago Time article (note, it was a minor edit) [].

Restored material [] added by a block IP suspected of being a HughD sock []. The IP's added material was similar to the material HughD added to the article. Springee (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Please check against previously blocked socks. HughD's account is too old for checking against recent socks.


 * Additional Propublica template edit: []

X1\'s edit pattern does suggest a strong understanding of Wikipedia for a new account but the inconclusive check user and the reply here is enough to convince me this isn't yet another HughD sock. Springee (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So are you going to revert your deletion of my edit at ExxonMobil climate change controversy or do you want me to revert you? Or do you want to work together to rewrite the paragraph for what ever reason?  X1\ (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've moved the content discussion to the article talk page. Springee (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Please be advised that User talk:X1\ asked for admin help about this, and I advised them to either post here or at WT:SPI. Hopefully, you will get input from them before closing this. — Maile (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am guessing my comments go here, although I am guessing I am not an "other".
 * , Not only are you barking-up the wrong tree, you are in the wrong forest. Your description seems to describe you more than me.  Your account did 23 edits your first "day" (Corvette leaf spring, back in 2008) [while I had five (all in my userspace)], with couple hundred edits that year, mostly no edits until 2015 when your account shows over a thousand edits (mostly combustion engine vehicle and fossil-fuel company related articles such as ExxonMobil climate change controversy (you edited 68 times, me four (representing just two edits, mostly this one)); with some politics, such as Chicago-style politics (21 times) and Southern strategy (48 times) both of which I have never edited.
 * It appears Springee and HughD crossed paths often over fossil-fuel combustion and poltics
 * Again, not me. The vast majority of my contributions have been at the America-Russia election thing.  I have become curious as to Russia's (Putin's) motives, as it seems this interference is really going to blow-up in their face in the long run.  Russia's economy is based on global fossil-fuel combustion demand, and Putin's circle appears dependent on off-shoring their acquired funds.  Editing has been generally useful to me to attempt to organize the flood of news about this significant subject, and hopefully my "organizing" has been useful to other readers.
 * It feels User:Springee was very trigger-happy at "ExxonMobil climate change controversy", where I attempted to restore my edit (where I appear to have blindly walked into Springee's hunting grounds). Being relatively new to editing (although a long-time reader, and have attempted to grok to process (obvious failure) before jumping in to editing), I was confused by concurrent User:Slaxjaw/User:Jenuinez tagteaming followed by Springee's mass deletion (which also trawled-in my edit too), so I posted my bewilderment on the Talk page (and quickly forgot about since I didn't get a reply).  After months past, with no response, I assumed some kind a inadvertent collateral damage event had occurred and restored some text that contained an edit I did (including an edit summary as to why I did so).  @Springee, Why didn't you talk on the Talk page, since we have never communicated.  I am attempting to follow BRD.  It feels that is why I am really here, as it should be clear I am not HughD or one of their ghosts.
 * @Springee, I don't know why you appear so reactive to this HughD ghost(s), and I really don't care. One thing is for sure, your sniffer needs to be checked (too much gasoline?)  X1\ (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So are you going to revert all your deletions of my edits at Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, or do you want me to revert you? X1\ (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Revert your reverts of my edits at Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2018 Q1 too. X1\ (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 * , it isn't necessary to list socks that are in the archive. We know to look for them there. Thanks. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * - Well laid-out evidence. Would recommend a behavioural block but check for sleepers.  QEDK ( 桜  ❄  伴 ) 19:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I had blocked the account based on the clerk's comment above, but now the submitter of this SPI has come to my talk page saying they don't believe the editors are the same? Someone with more SPI experience want to push me in the right direction here? &mdash; Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 16:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to get into the behavioral evidence, but I can explain my technical finding. HughD used proxies that hid his location. However, because of the kinds of proxies he used, the UAs were probably his. X1\, on the other hand, edited from a school-related institution, which means that although the location is probably accurate, the UAs are not necessarily as he may be using the school's computers. That means I can't really match up anything between the two users/accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Not your fault, I wasn't clear enough; so it's mine. The suspected sockpuppet displayed borderline DUCK behaviour and given the huge amount of intersection, I'd definitely call them almost for sure, a sockpuppet. Since it was technically inconclusive, it does put the evidence to a backseat, atleast to some extent; pending the proof of use of evasive measures such as undocumented personal proxies or so. I have no opinions on the block itself, this is the kind I'd put at the discretion of the blocking admin but if you do find it a mistake basing it on my opinions, I apologize. -- QEDK ( 桜  ❄  伴 ) 16:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on a discussion at 's Talk page, Coffee has unblocked X1\. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

User "Springee" v. User "HughD"
21 Oct 2017 and 12 January 2018
 * wp:CheckUser
 * wp:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance
 * Editor Interaction Analyser


 * User Compare

When asked for admin help ...
Got a "notification" for something I don't understand

What is this ? It appears I unwittingly stepped in the middle of something. I looked at wp:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance which states "almost always" (cleared), which isn't 100% reassuring. Should I be doing something to defend myself? I've previously attempted to get a mentor to guide me in learning the ways and pitfalls of wikipedia, but to no success. Wikipedia has seemed to be all too cold or hostile, besides confusing, of a place. I am just now getting to back to editing while attempting to fight the flu, and I don't know if there is "bad faith" by this user; by example, they did not respond (for months) to my question about restoring some text that contained an edit I did.

As I said I am attempting to fight-off the flu, so it may be days before I can reply. X1\ (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The appropriate place to ask about this is Sockpuppet investigations/HughD on the template itself. Or, you can post questions at WT:SPI. — Maile  (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Coffee notices
{sockpuppet|HughD|proven}

February 2018
&mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 01:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

&mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 01:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018
{Tmbox
 * style = background: #f8eaba
 * image = Sock block.svg
 * text = This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet&#32;that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted.  If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text  below. &mdash; Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 02:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)}

{Unblock on hold | 1=Coffee | 2=SPI review. | 3 = &mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 16:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)}