Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alfred Fitzherbert/Archive

Evidence submitted by Mr Stephen
I think the history of the article Greater Manchester (here, look from 10:03, 13 May 2010 to 14:17, 14 May 2010) is a straightforward admission of sockpuppetry (or at least collusion) between, , and. In each case, the edits seek to change the location of the subject of the article; i.e. from being in Greater Manchester to Lancashire. This morning, made a similar set of edits.

WP:UCC is the guideline and the edits go against it, but that is not the issue here. The problem is that editors are having difficulties holding a conversation on a contentious subject with a single user. AGF and BITE requires that we assume each account is new—which it probably is not. There is the issue of building a false consensus as well.

The contribution history of suggests that the IP is not dynamic, or not too dynamic (the adjacent IPs at  and  have never contributed) and so identifying the socks may be worthwhile.

I have a suspicion that I know the sockmaster, and he/she edited today, but I am prepared to AGF.


 * Further evidence

Evasion of 3RR, see Bolton edit history. Mr Stephen (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The similarity between (e.g.) John Ugant & Alfred Fitzherbert.


 * diff by Alfred Fitzherbert, 06:23, 15 May 2010
 * diff by John Ugant, 11:16, 16 May 2010

Mr Stephen (talk) 15:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Mr Stephen, I think you are being very mean to my son, John. He is only 13 and I think it is commendable that he is getting involved in this kind of project. His friends keep telling him he is a total geek, but I am trying to encourage him, because he wants to study Geography at university when hs is older. OK, he is a bit obsessed with the Lancashire/Greater Manchester controversy, but he will grow out of it. Idris Ugant.

P.S. I have never heard of Mr Fitzpatrick.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Mr Stephen (talk) 10:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Moved from Sockpuppet investigations/93.174.8.253.  E lockid  ( Talk ) 11:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no indication for a checkuser here. Can you elaborate on why you feel a checkuser is necessary? Please review the reasons to make a CU request. The accounts with interleaving edits which admit to having multiple accounts may be doing so without the knowledge that they shouldn't; there's quite obviously no deception going on here. (I also note that they haven't been informed of this open case.) For those accounts, if some form of deception or abuse were intended, it would be an obvious duck so there is no need for a checkuser. As for Alfred Fitzherbert, I'm having trouble seeing a connection. If you could elaborate on why you think that user is connected, please feel free, but I see significant differences in editing patterns. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 15:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I should have scrolled down to see Shirik's comments first, but I just went on an evidence review and blocked and tagged the lot. Pretty clear that Alfred Fitzherbert encountered resistance and created Lydia Lufpump and John Ugant to help him out. After completing that task, I now see this section. If others wish to undo my action, I won't call it a wheel-war. Normally I'd close after the block, but I won't because of the apparent controversy.&mdash;Kww(talk) 05:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My decline was done before the additional evidence was provided. As stated above, I never disagreed that the accounts were related, just that I don't see any form of abuse. Now that that evidence has been provided, blocking under WP:DUCK is appropriate, and I still see no indication for a checkuser. Accordingly, I'm going to close this case. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 20:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)