Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A1Houseboy/Archive

07 May 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Users LimeyCinema1960, SharpQuillPen, and WordWrightUSA all registered and started editing within a 3-day period in January 2014. All of them started out editing The English Patient (film) and its talk page. All three of them have tendencies to post long talk page comments that are accusatory in tone (a few random examples: WordWrightUSA, SharpQuillPen, LimeyCinema1960) and they often seem to agree with each other in discussions.

I noticed LimeyCinema and SharpQuill, and their similarity to one another after they were identified at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places as having made similarly peculiar edits in two different geographic areas. They were invited to the talk page to explain themselves, and made statements that are remarkably similar in style and content: LimeyCinema1960; SharpQuillPen; see the linked discussion for additional examples.

I believe these three accounts are the same person. I am blocking all three for a short time as sockpuppets, and I am requesting checkuser largely because I think it likely that there are more than three accounts involved. --Orlady (talk) 04:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC) Orlady (talk) 04:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Adding A1Houseboy to the list: Another user with a strong focus on The English Patient (film) who has suddenly taken an interest in the National Register of Historic Places and seems to agree 100% with LimeyCinema1960 and SharpQuillPen. Note: A1Houseboy has been here a good bit longer than the other users. --Orlady (talk) 04:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * All I can say is that the behavioral evidence is similar; when I happened upon LimeyCinema1960 and SharpQuillPen in a discussion at WT:NRHP (in the current revision, it's the section almost at the bottom, just above "2014 National Historic Landmark designations"), I was quickly left wondering whether they were the same person, purely because they wrote similarly and were both advocating an unusual position at a project page where they'd never before appeared. When JamesBWatson blocked LimeyCinema1960 in February, part of his reasoning was that a battleground mentality was obvious.  Look at something SharpQuillPen said — LimeyCinema1960 advocated a position, I said basically "your words are confusing, and if I understand your proposal, it would harm the page", and SharpQuillPen came back with sentences such as But I can see by Nyttend reaction and expression that this is already getting dirty and We are not here to be bullied. Ok?  If they're not the same person, they definitely have similar personalities.  Nyttend (talk) 04:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * In addition to what Nyttend said, A1Houseboy also seems to share the same battleground mentality here, with language such as "sorry to burst your bubble"; this comment came shortly after I reverted an edit by SharpQuillPen, and I had never interacted with A1Houseboy previously (nor had he/she edited that page). SharpQuillPen also removed several bot notices from A1Houseboy's talk page with the edit summary "redundant", which he/she also used as an edit summary when removing similar notices from his/her own talk page. Given the other evidence, this makes me suspect that he/she forgot which account was logged in when he/she made the first removal. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 06:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't follow the NRHP talk page closely, but in my long experience, it's screamingly obvious that "Quill" and "Limey" are socks, and skimming the discussion, I thought, "All y'all are being trolled". Valfontis (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Yunshui 雲 水  09:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ,, , and are all ✅ as .  is , but incredibly duckish.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  23:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've indeffed the whole list. However, I didn't tag them because I think that the SPI clerks might want to change the sockmaster ID. --Orlady (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , marked for closure so clerks can review and tag as needed. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Once the report is closed it is archived; as the report still needs to be moved to the master, and the socks still need to be tagged, I've moved it back to "checked" status.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A1Houseboy predates all of the other socks by almost a year and a half so it should definitely be considered the master. I've changed the master above so that this is archived under that name. I marked all of the socks' user pages (A1Houseboy as master, WordWrightUSA as a suspected sock, and all the others as confirmed socks). With that I think this can be closed. --  At am a  頭 19:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Moved (renamed) the case page to correspond to the new master. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)