Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/92.14.216.40/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Self-acknowledged resumption of campaign at Talk:English people, also Talk:Anglo-Saxons; matching geolocation. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
88.110.104.155 is apparently Glasgow, but I've got different IP Geolocation providers showing me any of Glasgow, Edinburgh, or London for 92.14.216.40. Still, probably reasonable to call it a location match. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

There's something I don't understand here. Even if these are the same person, why is it socking? If I edit anonymously from two different locations (say, my home and my office), I'll be one person using two different IP addresses. Why would this make me a sock? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * 92.14.216.40 is banned, as an individual, not just the IP address, so editing by any other means is an evasion of this ban and prohibited. Mutt Lunker (talk) 07:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Do you have some specific diffs that support this, especially the "self-acknowledged resumption of campaign"? I'm just seeing two anonymous users in Scotland arguing about Scottish heritage/ethnicity.  That doesn't seem like enough to prove they're socks.   92 was editing every day, was blocked on 5 September, and 88 didn't start until five weeks later.  I'd be more likely to think they were socks if 88 picked up the same day 92 was blocked. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * This is the diff that indicates a resumption of their perceived dialogue with me, appended to their earlier series of questions immediately above, under the old IP. Per the ANI leading to their ban, all the current discussions at English people and on my talk page (here and here), they persistently and habitually attribute views that have not been expressed, counter them, then complain that they have had no response (whether there has been one or not). Their new comment refers to their continued displeasure that I have not "address(ed) any of these points".


 * Aside from this, the overall style of expression is similar, the themes the same, favoured phrases such as "ethnolinguistic groups" and indications of being Scottish or living in Scotland giving their views extra validity. Despite this, 92.14.216.40 characteristically tended towards American spellings and turns of phrase; there are insufficient edits with the new IP to be conclusive but there is a "Hey" as a greeting (uncommon in Scotland), cf this and this with the old IP. Also an "It's gotten", also not very Scottish, so characteristic. Quite a lot of quacking going on. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Reading through the diffs, I'm convinced this is the same person. Blocked for block evasion.  -- RoySmith (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Pattern of editing at same article talk pages, identified as strong sock suspect several months ago. Has recently resumed puppeteer's campaign at Talk:English people. Geolocation matches. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' Not sure if Checkuser is going to work with IPs, but I note that both IPs are registered to the same UK based ISP. Here is a diff of an edit from 30 August by the former (indeff blocked) IP. and here is a diff from the current controversy in which the IP admits he has been on about this for years. Another diff from the new IP to a user talk page in October has the new IP saying that he has been here 3 years and refers to his dispute on the Scottish pages that were all under the old IP address. applies and this is clearly the same user, although can only think semi protection of the talk page would work to discourage more IP socking.

My reason for adding to this SPI case, however, is that the latest WP:TEXTWALL in the talk page was in response to a new user's edits, attempting the same edits as this IP had attempted. The new user headed straight for that page and received a warning for disruptive edits. New user is. I assumed good faith in responses to this user, and you may feel it is not appropriate to run a check against this user, but it is certainly within the bounds of possibility that this is a sock of the IP. It is also possible that as the IP admits to three years of editing Wikipedia, that there is an unknown sock master here. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

- please see my comments about the named account before closing. Thanks. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
WP:DUCK for another 3 months. Doug Weller talk 21:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * - CheckUser evidence cannot be considered for IP's. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

WP:DUCK. Per the puppetmaster IP and an earlier sock, edits are largely confined to talk pages, making similar points about race, genetics, ethnolinguistics, largely about "Germanic peoples" and posts are never signed. Similar, or the same, articles ahve been visited. There are specific examples given in debate in common. There is a specific article edit in common.

The following edits may not in themselves be contentious but the diffs indicate the same user is responsible. Some of the diffs are repeated below as they illustrate two or more of the examples.

Removal of the term "celtic" to describe the Scottish people:

new sock puppetmaster

Specific objection to Henry Morton Stanley being described as Welsh:

new sock puppetmaster

Posting at the talk page of User:Edin balgarin:

new sock puppetmaster ,

Advancing genetics as evidence, particularly mention of haplogroup R1b-L21:

new sock (almost every post but these particular examples), , older sock (currently on 3 month ban), , ,

Stating that they, themself, are not celtic: new sock older sock ,

The new sock, the older sock and the master have all posted at Talk:Anglo-Saxons.

Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked for 3 months. In the future and for the record, this should be treated as if 92.14.216.40 was blocked indefinitely. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Characteristic race post at Talk:English people, per indeffed master and earlier socks, confirmed by geolocation of IP, further confirmed by subsequent post name checking me, referring to earlier discussions and characteristic misattribution of views that was instrumental in their indef. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I can provide individual diffs for the master and earlier sock but any of the posts from Special:Contributions/92.14.216.40 and Special:Contributions/88.110.104.155,  on the English people talk page are characteristic. Contributions at other articles are also of a similar tenor, including those at Special:Contributions/81.170.40.71. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Confirmation by sock:,. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Ad Orientem blocked the sock a few days ago, not much else to do here. Closing. GeneralNotability (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Per WP:QUACK, re-engaging in one of the several threads engaged in by master and various confirmed IP socks at Talk:Scottish people. Taking similar line, same geolocation, similarly not signing posts; similar subject matter and viewpoints reflected in earlier SPIs. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The initial diff for today's talk page edits is this but further confirmation of the disruptive intent has since transpired with this patently bad faith edit to the article itself. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
IP's blocked already by Materialscientist, regardless of the history there was plenty of just garden-variety disruptive editing. Not much more to do here, marking for close - happy to extend the block or semi-protect the page if this recurs. ~ mazca  talk 16:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

On 11th October I had already filed an SPI re this new IP (see archive) per WP:QUACK: “re-engaging in one of the several threads engaged in by master and various confirmed IP socks at Talk:Scottish people. Taking similar line, same geolocation, similarly not signing posts; similar subject matter and viewpoints reflected in earlier SPIs”.

Per ’s closing comments, the IP was “blocked already by, (for) garden-variety disruptive editing” to the article before any SPI was pursued, with the note “happy to extend the block or semi-protect the page if this recurs”. They’re back.

The initial diff from the talk page last week is this followed by this patently bad faith edit to the article itself. Today’s activity is these forum-style posts, tacked on to a largely unrelated thread and this less patently vandalous but seemingly pointy edit (though I’m unclear as to what the point is) to the article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC) Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Clearly the same user, Glasgow-based TalkTalk IPs. I've semi-protected both the article and the talk page for a month, which seems the best option here. ~ mazca  talk 23:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * (For others reviewing this, the ISP TalkTalk has merged/acquired several other ISPs and continue to use their IP ranges; so "Tiscali UK" and "Opal Telecom" ranges used here are still domestic TalkTalk IPs. This also has the side-effect that we'd have to block about 3% of the internet if we wanted to rangeblock this. ~ mazca  talk 23:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Per WP:QUACK: similar subject matter and viewpoints reflected in earlier SPIs re race, ethnicity, genetics, language. Similar style, idiolect and in expressions of feigned bafflement at reactions to their edits. Same geolocation, characteristically not signing posts, warring, editing in the middle of the night for geolocation. Currently blocked for a week for disruptive editing. Also take into account recent activity as User: 92.14.210.82. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * IP has already been given a week off for disruptive editing. Closing. --Blablubbs&#124;talk 20:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Per WP:QUACK: similar subject matter and viewpoints reflected in earlier SPIs re race, ethnicity, genetics, language. Overwhelmingly at talk pages, returning to favoured Talk:English people, questioning of existence of Talk:Scottish people, Talk:Scots language, “germanic” themes generally (see edit histories for earlier IP socks as much has been reverted). Similar style, idiolect. Similar apparent geolocation (tends to be closer to Glasgow but does roam Central Belt, sometimes wider), commonly editing in the middle of the night for geolocation. Advancement of outright OR or unwarranted interpretation of sources. Misattribution of views to other editors. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * No edits in a few days. Not actively disrupting. Closing. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Same IP range, making edits to article relating to Scotland/England. They are also going through, and reverting edits made by User:Mutt Lunker who has been reporting socks of this editor. BlueNoise ( Désorienté? It's just purple ) 02:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Yeah, seems pretty obvious. Blocked them, and we'll block them again if need be. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * IP blocked and pages protected, nothing more to do (so far). courtesy ping, closing. DatGuyTalkContribs 19:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Usage of strong and demanding language in Talk:2023 and everything related to WP:YEARS. See User talk:TheScrubby, and Talk:2023 Wikianon2023 is blocked, but included in this SPI due to self-admission. MarioJump83 (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note that both IP and account is blocked. The only thing is, should the case and archives move into Wikianon2023 if they are proven to be a sockpuppet? MarioJump83 (talk) 09:26, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I would recommend that the entire case should be moved to Wikianon2023 as to make it easier. They certainly aren't Jim or Scrubby, thank you. MarioJump83 (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Based on their words to me under Wikianon2023, they clearly do seem to be well-informed about the recent content disputes on years articles. The user seems to have gained an understanding of the dispute and seem to be standing in solidarity of retired editor TheScrubby (who they list on Scrubby's talk page as an "old foe"). It's most likely that the purported user behind at least Wikianon2023 is one of the people who have most frequently has sided against TheScrubby in debates, and in particular paid special attention to Rosguill's comments on the Long Term Ownership at WP Years discussion (see this permalink to Scrubby's talk page). In their words to me on my talk page (see here), they've also cited other users who "weren't given the chance to defend themselves", and they placed me under an arbitrary tribunal separate from the Wikipedia community. Their comments seem to allude to Jim Michael 2, a user who had his own words used against him and ultimately ended up TBANned from years articles. Whether they are Jim Michael 2 (who has disagreed with Scrubby on some occasions in Years discussions though mostly both of them towed the same philosophy, see Archive 14 of Talk:2022, though the two editors seem to disagree on Vivienne Westwood's discussion), another editor "allied" with Jim Michael, or even Scrubby editing from an IP claiming to be an old foe to reduce his own suspicions, remains yet to be seen.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 19:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Closing without moving the case, which is long, to the named account. If the clerk wants to do so before the case is archived, that's up to them. Bbb23 (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Similar use of language in Talk:2023 like previous IPs, plus these IPs has edited articles related to Scotland, something these IPs had done prior to 2023. MarioJump83 (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Added another one. Honestly, you should actively check for 2023 and Talk:2023 at this point through page history, especially if another Scotland-geolocating IPs emerge. I would like to see both of these pages protected for active sockpuppetry. MarioJump83 (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Geolocations, idiolect, intemperance of interactions, areas of interest, all fit. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * IPs have all been blocked. Closing. Spicy (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)