Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barryispuzzled/Archive

Evidence submitted by smatprt
Background: A former user, User:Barryispuzzled, was indefinitely banned for operating over a dozen sockpuppets. Here is the original report [] and here is the followup report []. In addition to the sockpuppetry, the user, who identified himself as "Barry Clark", operator of Barryispuzzled.com, threatened violence against several editors, as the earlier reports will show. He also threatened to return, saying there were plenty of internet cafes where he could operate to avoid IP detection. He has lived up to his promise, creating three new user accounts, user:Wellstanley, user:AnnaGram, and user:DrBand. All three accounts exhibit identical behavior to his previous sockpuppets including:
 * AnnaGram has edited on two articles only - Shakespeare authorship question and Baconian theory, an article written primarily by BarryisPuzzled, who is an adherent of the Baconian theory of Shakespeare Authorship (he has also self-published a book on the subject). The only other edits made by AnnaGram were:
 * AnnaGram made mass deletions of material from the Shakespeare authorship question article here [] and here [], both of which have been reverted by myself and other editors.
 * AnnaGram left personal message/attack on my talk page identical to previous edits when he was known as BarryisPuzzled.[]
 * In an effort to avoid detection, AnnaGram created a conversation between himself and his other sockpuppet, WellStanley, here: []. This is identical behavior to his previous case when he created several puppets who either supported or argued with each other, as reported in the above referenced cases.
 * WellStanley has made identical edits, i.e. mass deletions of material from the Shakespeare authorship question article here: [], [], and here [], the last two being identical to the above referenced edits of AnnaGram.
 * As some kind of preemptive strike, immediately after leaving a warning on his talk page, WellStanley filed two seperate (but identical) complaints against me at two wiki boards here: [], here []. The first report (mediation) was closed because it was clear he didn't want mediation. The second report, which he also failed to sign, was also closed without comment or action. Again, this is identical behavior to that exhibited when he was operating as BarryIsPuzzled, filing multiple reports with false accusations under various socks the moment a warning was left on his page. Also continuing his former pattern, he tried to hide these complaints by not informing me on my user page.
 * In an attempt to create a false history, when creating his user talk page in November of 2009, WellStanley somehow added some messages from October of 2008, here []
 * DrBand has also been editing the Baconian theory article, (written primarily by BarryisPuzzled), where he linked the article to his own website, Barryispuzzled.com here: [] and deleted a reference request [].
 * DrBand has made only 11 edits, all related to the Baconian theory article, including the two referenced above, so he seems to be a single subject editor. His work has now been taken over by AnnaGram. Smatprt (talk) 08:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
The article range and edit summaries match too closely to be coincidental. Socks indefinitely blocked and tagged, sockmaster blocked 1 month. –MuZemike 01:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sockmaster was a new sock for an indefinitely banned user, so I don't understand what the one month block is all about. Can you explain, please?
 * I'll take another look at the evidence. Next time, please create the SPI case under the sockmaster's username. –MuZemike 01:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Now it looks even more clear when I look at the sockmaster's contribs. WellStanley is now indefinitely blocked. –MuZemike 01:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets




Evidence submitted by User:smatprt
BarryisPuzzled, who identified himself as a "Barry R. Clark", received an indefinite ban as reported here:[] for his repeated vandalism, threats (both physical and legal) on the Shakespeare authorship question article (he is a proponent of the Baconian theory of Shakespeare Authorship who maintains his own website "Barryispuzzled.com". At the time of his ban he announced that he would be back and that there were plenty of internet cafes where he could carry out his vendetta. On Jan 10, as evidenced in
 * StanIsWell admits his puppetry here: [], announcing that he was going to create more puppets using internet cafes all over the UK [].
 * Over the last 3 days several new accounts were created (JDawLSE was created on Jan 17 and TermiteGo on Jan 16), making edits exclusive to the Shakespeare authorship question that repeated former arguments made by BarryisPuzzled.
 * JDawLSE has an edit history of 1 edit: [], repeating a popular complaint of BarryisPuzzled, which was reverted as a Sockpuppet edit. The action received no challenge or comment from JDawLSE.
 * TermiteGo then made this edit: [], which contained false accusations that are identical to those contained in this edit: [], with the goals of payback, deception and disruption.
 * StanisWell also announced here that "no ban would stop him": []

It is clear that BarryisPuzzled is intent on creating disruption, vandalism, and (now) carrying out a personal vendetta against me for my role in exposing his sockpuppets. The question I have for administrators is what can be done? Can the IP's he uses be blocked? Can the articles he is intent on destroying be semi-protected with some major restrictions on newly created accounts? This is getting unduly out of hand and needs some serious admin attention and a viable solution.

Here is another one that just popped up today: Amoratado
 * Amoratado was created today and made two spam edits to the Baconian section of the article, which, as you can see from previous reports, is Barry's favorite topic.

And here is another likely subject. This was clear vandalism so should be blocked and/or IP blocked anyway.
 * Washingtonissaquah was just created for pure vandalism: []

Here is an IP that just made a similar edit to the ones Barry has been making [], and one of pure vandalism attacking the Wiki editors:[]:


 * 216.9.22.37

Obviously he won't be stopping. He returns with this: []. Please ban user and his latest IP. And this: []. Smatprt (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Self-endorsing for CheckUser attention as this user seems to be creating many socks in short order (see previous SPI case). Perhaps a sweep for sleepers or a block on an underlying IP can help here. –MuZemike 14:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

✅ the following are Barryispuzzled: These two are ✅ sockpuppets, but it is whether there is a relation to Barryispuzzled, due to the nature of the IP: And finally, it is Amoratado is Baryispuzzled based on geography. Dominic·t 13:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

to check and make another sweep with regards to the following account:



–MuZemike 19:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ - also, no other socks - A l is o n  ❤ 04:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Old Moonraker
Stalking User:Smatprt and systematically deleting his edits. When "Temperance008" is RV, same deletions carried out by "Jovial007", "Justicearrival" and "Debit97". Same first edit on each user's userpage and talkpage. User:NiceOneCyril boasts of his/her achievements on User:Smatprt's talk page.

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Possibly ? William Avery (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Current case: Sockpuppet investigations/Barryispuzzled--Old Moonraker (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Blocked and tagged the latest socks. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 09:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Smatprt

 * User RewlandUmmer appeared a few days ago and made the following edits: [], [], and [], and then inserted the same material here: [] and []. The substance of these edits is the "Strachey" letter, often used to support the Baconian Theory, an article written almost exclusively by Barryispuzzled, who has identified himself repeatedly as Barry Clark, a resident of the UK and a self-proclaimed expert on the Baconian Theory and on "Puzzles".
 * Compare those edits with Barry's earlier edits such as [], [], and []. Barry has long fixated on the "Strachey" letter, as evidenced by his contribution history. Now comes "new" editor RewlandUmmer bringing even more "Strachey" edits to these new articles.
 * Barryispuzzled loves all things to do with puzzles, anagrams, etc, using those words frequently and discussing those subjects endlessly [] (and this entire section on anagrams. Now we have RewlandUmmer's edit here [], where someone mentioned "anagrams" and Rewland just couldn't resist chiming in about anagrams.
 * Similarly, Barry is well known for his love of number and digit games and other puzzles - and now we have this edit [] containing comments on numbers and using his favorite word "puzzling".
 * Here [] Rweland infers that he has been reading these pages for a long time, implying that is how he got to know about linking and formatting. If this were true, however, then he would certianly know the main editors involved. Yet here [] he innocently asks "who is this editor", and here [], he attacks the very two editors who have had Barryispuzzled blocked on numerous occasions (see archives).
 * Finally, his repeated past attacks on me in particular are well documented in the previous cases. Here only a few days, Rewland has attacked me here [] with the same exact assertions as in the past - questioning my sanity, and [] requesting a permanent ban (as he had done repeatedly in the past under numerous socks. Smatprt (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
Removed for privacy reasons

Comments by other users
I am importing two comments from other editors, along with links to the related discussions:
 * Just for the record, the pattern exhibited by since the account was registered matches  and his socks so well that I was considering whether a case should be filed at WP:SPI to determine the truth; Barry's favorite target was, for reasons related both to the topic (SAQ and Barry is a Bacon guy vs. Oxford for Smatprt) and because Smatprt was instrumental in getting the socking shut down; and Barry's MO is definitely to try to stir things up and play mind games (he used one sock to attack one of his other socks to try to garner sympathy and defenders). Incidentally, an IP edit made to  may be helpful in determining who's who here (and it is geographically plausible as Barry). --Xover (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC) Full discussion here: [
 * I also immediately took the view RewlandUmmer was Barryispuzzled, though admittedly the user name strongly implies an anagram of a particular 'real' name. However, Barry loves anagrams and the editor's style is very close to Barry's, as is the apparent disingenuousness. Paul B (talk) 01:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Full discussion here: []
 * You are mistaken about checkuser. Barry lives in London and uses internet cafes. Millions of people live in London. If he happens to be visiting Oxford for some reason he may easily 'create' a new identity there. In such a case, the only way to determine his identity is by old fashioned analysis of style and content. I don't presume he is a sock, I take the view that he is on the basis of the evidence, as did Smatprt. Paul B (talk) 04:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Full discussion here []
 * See RewlandUmmer's AN/I thread on Smatprt for more background on the discussion. RU claims to be an Oxford academic, so one would expect their editing location to be consistent with that (although it is Summer, so take it with a grain of salt).  Barry is purported to edit from Internet cafes in London.  I have no position one way or the other as to whether or not RU is a barry sock, as the evidence seems mostly behavioural and I didn't feel like wading through both editor's contributions when we have you lovely people here to do that ;) Throwaway85 (talk) 02:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The IP above, which is clearly RU, geolocates to the Isle of Man. "RewlandUmmer" could be an anagram of | these.  Not sure how helpful that is. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That list does not include names, of which "Andrew Rummel" would be the most likely. Not that this matters, since the puckish genius himself has revealed his true identity above, to the delight and astonishment of all. Paul B (talk) 12:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's helpful. Ban time. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Barry stated himself that he uses Internet cafés and several personas (see User talk:Barryispuzzled). In order to explain the reasons why I am certain this is Barry, I will have to make what seem to be 'personal' comments, since he is identifiable by his manner and personality. Barry has a hugely inflated ego and cannot resist the temptation to show off, which usually makes his 'clever' deceptions entirely transparent. In this case his care to assert that he is in Oxford, and that checks will prove the fact, only goes to show that he presupposes we would think he should be somewhere else. Why would a real academic want to tell us to check his location? Barry's real name (disclosed by himself ) is Barry R. Clarke (needless to say he created the article himself). He makes puzzle books, and likes anagrams, mathematical games etc. One of his socks was called "Anna Gram" (ho ho). The supposed academic "RewlandUmmer" imagaines himself mistaken for the famous mathemetican Roger Penrose, a fantasy entirely typical of Barry, as is the claim to be an Oxford academic. Barry's manner is consistent: hauteur, sneering, elaborate claims to intellectual superiority, complete dishonesty. He is only interested in promoting the claims of Bacon as Shakespeare, a subject on which he has written a book. Barry and his socks repeatedly attempt to add evidence that Shakespeare used a source known as the "True Reportory", which is indeed the standard view within academia. However, his intention is to counter his bête noire User:Smatprt, believer in the fringe theory that Edward de Vere, who died before the True Reportery was written, is the author of The Tempest. Confused? Unsurprising. But this is the world of Shakespeare Authorship 'theory'. Barry is the only editor who obssesses about this and the only one who writes in this style. Paul B (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * Note: I've blocked RewlandUmmer per this. If someone else would close this case I'd appreciate it, haven't done it in over two years and don't quite remember how. · Andonic  Contact 13:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Marking for close. TN X Man  13:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

–&#8239;Joe (talk) 00:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Evidence
 * Barry R. Clarke was created by (apparently Clarke himself) and edited by his socks before he was banned.
 * On 10th July, edited Barry R. Clarke to, among other things, remove the description of Clarke as a theoretical physicist. He also left a note on the article's talk page stating it was an autobiography created by a blocked sock puppet.
 * On 20th July, left an attacking message on Jones' talk page.
 * Jones also happens to have a biographical article at Jonathan A. Jones. On the talk page of that article, there is a malformed nomination for deletion from last December, made by another IP editor (who I don't think is a sock).
 * Shortly after leaving the message on Jones' talk page, the suspected sock IP vandalised the article on Jones.
 * A few hours after this was reverted, was created. This user then vandalised the article on Jones.
 * The IP vandal then found the old deletion nomination on the talk page and added their support.
 * Immediately after, Cumonaveago007 also supported the nomination.
 * Later that afternoon, was created. This accounts first edit was to reply to Jones on Talk:Barry R. Clarke and then restore the "theoretical physicist" text on the article itself.
 * Conquistador2178 then attempted to transfer the deletion nomination at Talk:Jonathan A. Jones to a proper AfD at Articles for deletion/Jonathan A. Jones diff 1diff 2.
 * Both accounts and the IP share the habit of enclosing their talk page signatures in parentheses.

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * and . Both of these should say July. Adam9007 (talk) 02:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You will probably also want to scrutinize user "AntonChigurhs gun" (unlinked, sorry, but I'm unsure about the ping/noping practice at SPI nowadays). Barry's defining interest first time around was the Shakespeare authorship question (the Baconian theory in particular). This account was created on July 19 and went on to edit war to push the conspiracy theory on The Merchant of Venice, and the high handed style on the user's talk page and edit summaries is consistent with Barry (who liked to pretend he was a QC). This one may need CU to tie to the others since this account hasn't edited the biographical articles, but I'd say the behavioural evidence is persuasive on its own. --Xover (talk) 06:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I should start by declaring my obvious COI here, but would then like to make two brief comments: (1) The December 2016 IP is indeed unrelated (if I recall corrcetly this is probably a friend of Paul Frampton, but it all went quiet); (2) There's also a minor edit by 163.1.107.7 (which geolocates to the Bodleian Libraries in Oxford) who would appear to be Conquistador2178 editing while logged out. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please also see Sockpuppet investigations/Orchomen – I suspect these two SPI cases may be related. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Orchomen and Barryispuzzled are unlikely to be related. Based on my skimming of the Orchomen SPI their MOs and areas of interest are different. Barryispuzzled has also self-identified as Barry R. Clarke. --Xover (talk) 05:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Also throw and  on the pile - two brand new editors who turned up to !vote "keep" on Articles for deletion/Barry R. Clarke (2nd nomination) and having the same sort of modus operandi of inventing "imaginary friends" to annoy everyone. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  15:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * With all the evidence here, but the last time this happened was 2010 so there's a tiny chance it's someone else.  Tessaract2 Talk 12:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Two editors, (now checkuser-blocked) and, have been vandalizing this SPI by copying and pasting a chunk of its source from the front to the end, with the accused sockpuppet account names replaced by obvious non-socks. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll dig a bit more; I blocked Loftybeach in relation to the Orchomen SPI. has done a lot of work on that SPI and perhaps they have something to add here as well. Currently there seem to be two ranges of IPs and perhaps a rangeblock is possible to defend against this childish stuff. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I blocked Cumonaveago for, basically, a-holishness--meaning BLP violations, NOTHERE, disruption, etc. The Conquistador account does not seem to be related and I am not convinced (yet) by the behavioral evidence. Lacking experience with the details of this sock, I have no reason to believe it's Barryispuzzled, nor do I have much reason to run CU on, who I am about to block for simply not being here to improve the project. Drmies (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Anyone whose first edits are the creation of their user page and their user talk page is a sock. I've yet to see proof otherwise. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I've blocked Conquistador2178 as well. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

See Articles for deletion/Roger Reed for what looks to me like a continuation of the previous vendetta of Barryispuzzled against long-term constructive editor Jonathan A Jones. If evidence of sockpuppetry turns out to be insufficiently convincing, this could also be considered as a disallowed username (compare "Johnnysmitha" with Jones' name). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC) David Eppstein (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn: After the response by Jones at the AfD, I think this can be marked as closed and archived without any additional checks or other action. The timing doesn't work out. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2017 (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

 * Closing with no action per filer. Sro23 (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)