Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/891 mm/Archive

27 March 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

The first three accounts all participated in an RM at Riksdag started by Railie May, where they expressed displeasure with the article's current name; Gode-Tor made basically the same argument as Railie May. The 891 mm and Railie May accounts were registered about two weeks apart and immediately began making similar edits, and have since edited seven of the same pages, including Riksdag and its talk page. Gode-Tor was registered two months earlier, but 5 of their 10 edits have been to pages the others edited: Talk:Riksdag, Riksdag (disambiguation), and Roslagsbanan. Both Railie May and Gode-Tor edited in the middle of consecutive edits by 891 mm at Roslagsbanan (Railie May:; Gode-Tor: ). Both the 891 mm and Railie May accounts have tried to move Riksdag away from its current title, and both have opened move reviews about the name. The accounts all speak in a similar broken English and make similar errors (such as "ss" instead of "s"; vs. ) I've included -Johan- because in light of the other evidence, it seemed very odd that a Swedish account with 19 edits in 7 years somehow found the very obscure move review process to support 891 mm's MR. Cúchullain t/ c  15:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 891 mm tells me "...I am not the same as someone else even if I use the same computer as someone with the same opinion." Hmm...--Cúchullain t/ c 17:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * It should be noted that Cuchullain does this just because he doesn't like that I have a different interpretation of statistics than he has regarding riksdag. I have on occation used the same computer as someone with the same interpretation as I have (we have also discussed it in IRL). I think it is strange if this shouldn't be allowed. 891 mm (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 891 mm, that is one of the worst defences I've seen in an SPI, you've admitted that the edits have come from one computer, from different accounts. At the very least, you're clearly using meatpuppets: based on that defence, I suspect it's actually socking. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - - Based on 891's comments to this very page, he shares a computer with someone involved in the same disputes. Before I go deep into behavioral analysis, I'd like a CU to see just how many "editors" are using that computer.. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * is . T. Canens (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * is . T. Canens (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * is . T. Canens (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * is . T. Canens (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * is . T. Canens (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * is . T. Canens (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * is . T. Canens (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * is . T. Canens (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * is . T. Canens (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * is . T. Canens (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * is . T. Canens (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * is . T. Canens (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Two people sharing a computer is conceivable. 11 is not. Blocked the socks indefinitely, master for 2 weeks. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

08 May 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

These accounts show the same commenting style and tendency for edit warring at Swedish topics, particularly Riksdag, as previous blocked socks ([Knot at All and 90.233.138] are stale but are included to establish the pattern). Bandy boy and 90.233.138.0 have edit warred over material first introduced by a Knot at All. Bandy boy's subsequent edits say almost exactly the same things as other 891 mm socks. Additionally, their new move request uses mostly the same wording as the puppet master's previous RMs and move reviews. Quack, quack.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC) Cúchullain t/ c  17:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

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


 * So? I happen to agree with what some other people have already said on that talk page, which should not seem strange as it is what you learn in school in Sweden. I have on ocation edited uninlogged. Are you not allowed to disagree with the user who made this sockpuppet claim? Bandy boy (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * LOL. It may be worth running a checkuser given this editor's past sock farming.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, you are so funny. Bandy boy (talk) 23:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Added Sprucetwig to SPI list. Murry1975 (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sprucetwig is my landlord, we use the same Internet connection, but I am not him. Some other people here also use it, like my roommate. My roommate calls himself Bandy guy. I have no idea who Knot at all is, though. Bandy boy (talk) 23:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Where have we heard that before?--Cúchullain t/ c 11:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Adding Bandy guy per the above for obvious reasons. The Bandy boy, Bandy guy, and Sprucetwig accounts have participated in the same way at Articles for deletion/American Bandy Association. Compare this evidence of prior vote stacking.--Cúchullain t/ c 11:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't give up, you just have to have me banned from Wikipedia, don't you? Just because I don't share your opinions. Are you proud of yourself, doing like this? Bandy boy (talk) 13:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Added 83.251.70.156 per this.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So it's forbidden to happen to be uninlogged? Show me the rule saying that. Bandy boy (talk) 13:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The editor is now admitting to using multiple accounts:--Cúchullain t/ c 15:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but not these, as I told you. I have made no abuse of accounts. Be honest in what you say, or please just let this rest. I understand that you hate and despise me, but I just can't understand why. I have another opinion than you, an opinion which is not only mine but it is based on facts which I have provided as sources, is that so bad in your eyes? You just can't take it that you might be wrong. Bandy boy (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Those other accounts which I have been using in the past, I am not using anymore. So I am not "using" multiple accounts, I have used other accounts. They have also never been used for voting in the same discussions or something like that, so there was no abuse. Bandy boy (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I had suspected myself the bandy boy has been sockpuppeting in regards to some bandy RfDs. Based on what Cuchullain has brought up for evidence I think a checkuser should be run. -DJSasso (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. Some friends of mine voted as I did just because they have the same opinion as I do. You think they are sock puppets just because you can't understand how someone might think bandy is an interesting and important sport. If one person thinks so, how come it's strange that three people do? Bandy boy (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if they were a couple friends of yours. If they came to these discussions and voted how you asked them to vote in support of your position then that would be what is called meat puppetry which is bad as well. That being said I don't for a minute buy the its not me its my roommate excuse which is the excuse almost every sock puppeteer tries to use when they are caught. Has nothing to do with not thinking bandy is an interesting and important sport, I like bandy. -DJSasso (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You say you like bandy, but you obviously don't. You wouldn't do what you do against the bandy articles if you liked bandy. You are campaigning against them while on the other hand you are voting to keep articles in other sports which have fewer references. Bandy boy (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I put articles of subjects I like for deletion all the time. I have deleted hundreds of hockey articles for example. Why do I do this? Because I understand the guidelines required to be met to be on Wikipedia. I think you have a severe missunderstanding on what it means to be referenced. I am sorry a number of articles you created were not notable. But that doesn't mean I don't like the sport. Heck I have even played it. -DJSasso (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't assume good faith in your want to delete bandy articles, since you have voted to keep other articles with fewer references. I would have accepted your possition if you were consistent, but you are not. Since you vote to keep articles with fewer references, and vote to delete articles with more references (even if their references may be just primary ones), you are not following the guidelines of notability which you talk about so much. Therefore I think it's hard to believe you, when you say you like bandy, and therefore, you can't really persuade me with what you say about the bandy articles, even if I do realize that your opinion may be in line with the guidelines. Bandy boy (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Djsasso, I agree, we probably need checkuser here at this point.Cúchullain t/ c 21:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Why? I have told you what I know and I have pledged not to use any other accounts again. BTW, why did you revert my last edit on this page? Bandy boy (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I inadvertantly clicked "rollback" trying to write a post and corrected it immediately. We need a checkuser because you're clearly using multiple accounts and won't come clean.--Cúchullain t/ c 12:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a strange misstake to make, but whatever... I have come clean. What more is it you want to know? Bandy boy (talk) 00:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 10:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There is extensive socking here. As the master is behavioural evidence will be needed to tie the accounts to the purported master. That being said the following accounts are ✅ to each other:
 * The confirmed finding comes from multiple points of technical and topical overlap as well as some distinctive behavioural tells.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You say you have promised to stop using multiple accounts. Which account do you want to continue using?  I will block all of the others (listed above by ) and you can go on your way, with the warning that future abuse of multiple accounts may result in an indefinite block on all of your accounts. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 04:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, to clarify, there is inherently abuse whenever the same person uses multiple accounts to edit the same article(s), especially when making changes others disagree with. This is because it falsely leads editors to believe there is more support for your desired changes than there really is.  Furthermore, there has been actual discussion manipulation in at least three cases; twice at AfD (one two), and once at a WikiProject Council discussion.  Given this evidence, please take my offer for what it is -- a second chance to do what you're claiming, to come clean and follow the rules from here on.  But it does come with a warning: if you break policy again in this manner, you may end up either topic banned or site banned.  Most Wikipedians don't have any patience for these shenanigans. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 04:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The confirmed finding comes from multiple points of technical and topical overlap as well as some distinctive behavioural tells.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You say you have promised to stop using multiple accounts. Which account do you want to continue using?  I will block all of the others (listed above by ) and you can go on your way, with the warning that future abuse of multiple accounts may result in an indefinite block on all of your accounts. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 04:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, to clarify, there is inherently abuse whenever the same person uses multiple accounts to edit the same article(s), especially when making changes others disagree with. This is because it falsely leads editors to believe there is more support for your desired changes than there really is.  Furthermore, there has been actual discussion manipulation in at least three cases; twice at AfD (one two), and once at a WikiProject Council discussion.  Given this evidence, please take my offer for what it is -- a second chance to do what you're claiming, to come clean and follow the rules from here on.  But it does come with a warning: if you break policy again in this manner, you may end up either topic banned or site banned.  Most Wikipedians don't have any patience for these shenanigans. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 04:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The confirmed finding comes from multiple points of technical and topical overlap as well as some distinctive behavioural tells.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You say you have promised to stop using multiple accounts. Which account do you want to continue using?  I will block all of the others (listed above by ) and you can go on your way, with the warning that future abuse of multiple accounts may result in an indefinite block on all of your accounts. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 04:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, to clarify, there is inherently abuse whenever the same person uses multiple accounts to edit the same article(s), especially when making changes others disagree with. This is because it falsely leads editors to believe there is more support for your desired changes than there really is.  Furthermore, there has been actual discussion manipulation in at least three cases; twice at AfD (one two), and once at a WikiProject Council discussion.  Given this evidence, please take my offer for what it is -- a second chance to do what you're claiming, to come clean and follow the rules from here on.  But it does come with a warning: if you break policy again in this manner, you may end up either topic banned or site banned.  Most Wikipedians don't have any patience for these shenanigans. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 04:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The confirmed finding comes from multiple points of technical and topical overlap as well as some distinctive behavioural tells.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You say you have promised to stop using multiple accounts. Which account do you want to continue using?  I will block all of the others (listed above by ) and you can go on your way, with the warning that future abuse of multiple accounts may result in an indefinite block on all of your accounts. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 04:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, to clarify, there is inherently abuse whenever the same person uses multiple accounts to edit the same article(s), especially when making changes others disagree with. This is because it falsely leads editors to believe there is more support for your desired changes than there really is.  Furthermore, there has been actual discussion manipulation in at least three cases; twice at AfD (one two), and once at a WikiProject Council discussion.  Given this evidence, please take my offer for what it is -- a second chance to do what you're claiming, to come clean and follow the rules from here on.  But it does come with a warning: if you break policy again in this manner, you may end up either topic banned or site banned.  Most Wikipedians don't have any patience for these shenanigans. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 04:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, to clarify, there is inherently abuse whenever the same person uses multiple accounts to edit the same article(s), especially when making changes others disagree with. This is because it falsely leads editors to believe there is more support for your desired changes than there really is.  Furthermore, there has been actual discussion manipulation in at least three cases; twice at AfD (one two), and once at a WikiProject Council discussion.  Given this evidence, please take my offer for what it is -- a second chance to do what you're claiming, to come clean and follow the rules from here on.  But it does come with a warning: if you break policy again in this manner, you may end up either topic banned or site banned.  Most Wikipedians don't have any patience for these shenanigans. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 04:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * After further consideration, lack of response by, and review of the prior SPI, I've decided the best course of action to prevent further disruption is to indefinitely block all of the confirmed accounts listed above as puppets of and also to block that account indefinitely for repeated abuse of multiple accounts. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 11:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

06 June 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

See Djsasso's comment here. Same IP range, same comments about bandy and hockey, same general writing style. Previous socks Bandy boy and Andrew S. Knight previously edited Bandy and Talk:Bandy. Requesting checkuser due to the editor's previous sock farming. It's worth pointing out that the Bandy boy account is currently appealing his block here. Cúchullain t/ c 14:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

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

The editor admits it was them.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * IP blocked. No need to run a sleeper check, as one was done just a few weeks ago. Closing. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 10:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)