Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BriceStratford/Archive

30 March 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

A small army of similar accounts with an obsessive interest in one person, Brice Stratford, and his doings, his awards, his family and his achievements. Articles affected include:


 * windsor rep acting dynasty
 * awards for classical theatre
 * windsor rep acting dynasty
 * awards for classical theatre
 * awards for classical theatre
 * awards for classical theatre
 * awards for classical theatre
 * awards for classical theatre
 * awards for classical theatre
 * awards for classical theatre
 * awards for classical theatre
 * awards for classical theatre
 * awards for classical theatre
 * awards for classical theatre
 * awards for classical theatre
 * awards for classical theatre
 * awards for classical theatre
 * awards for classical theatre
 * awards for classical theatre
 * awards for classical theatre
 * awards for classical theatre
 * awards for classical theatre

All are personally or professionally connected to Brice Stratford.


 * Evidence of improper or disruptive interaction:
 * Stamford Bull Run was by BriceStratford. Eight minutes later PeggyMa (incorrectly)  the CorenSearchBot notice
 * TheFrontDeskMust, MarlovianPlough and Personofi successively voted "delete" at Articles for deletion/Solent Thrashers (2nd nomination)
 * TheFrontDeskMust and MarlovianPlough successively voted "keep" at Articles for deletion/Owle Schreame Awards
 * TheFrontDeskMust and MarlovianPlough worked together to edit-war with at Ian Charleson Awards (at least one IP there is presumably also connected to them)

And so on. Some sample Intersect Contribs results: 1, 2, 3. Let me know if more is needed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Evidence of general and/or promotional interaction:
 * Brice Stratford has been edited by QualityEngli, CalfLiver, Theehnwor, LlowCro, Personofi, MarlovianPlough, PeggyMa, TheFrontDeskMust, RichElph
 * Owle Schreame Awards has been edited by MarlovianPlough, PeggyMa, TheFrontDeskMust, Cremlo89, Evadlion
 * Windsor rep acting dynasty has been edited by CalfLiver, Theehnwor, and
 * John Counsell (theatre director) has been edited (only) by CalfLiver, Theehnwor, LlowCro; one minute after it was created, TheFrontDeskMust  John Counsell to John Counsell (pastor) "to distinguish from John Counsell (theatre director)"

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


 * Hello, 'tis I, Brice Stratford: I'm afraid I've only just become aware of all this mess, and only just now saw the notification email (which had gone to my junk folder). To be honest, it's all a little overwhelming: I'm currently accessing wikipedia from a shared connection in the large warehouse conversion that acts as the offices for our theatre company, and living space for a few members of it. We all share internet (as do a few people who have no connection with the company), and have a tendency to use each others computers without really thinking. Obviously we do have a team of people here who are dedicated to and passionate about promoting and making a record of our work, many of whom are young interns - I think perhaps that a combination of eager, competitive arts professionals, over-enthusiasm and general inexperience/ignorance of wikipedia's rules has all lead to something of a situation. I can only apologise for any problems caused, and assure you that there's been no malicious intent or intentional disingenuousness, only misplaced good faith and naivety. Do please do whatever you see fit with whichever pages are in question, and once again: apologies for any complications. BriceStratford (talk) 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Checkuser will be unable to tell us anything here that isn't already admitted above. Furthermore, looking at the account creation dates, it is very unlikely that these are sockpuppet accounts. Rather, it looks more like multiple editors who are affiliated with the subject working together. Closing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

31 March 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

It's not entirely clear to me why my previous filing on this was closed without investigation of the behavioural similarities between those various editors. In my opinion the explanation provided was not sufficient to explain or justify all that has gone on.

Since then, four new socks have surfaced. I also happened across one from the end of last year, H00ping Toff, most edits to either Owle Schreame Awards or Brice Stratford.


 * Evidence of improper or disruptive collaboration
 * WalkingOnTheB, Feast is Feast, "Theatre Royal, Windsor", and RoodEnd have all voted "keep" at Articles for deletion/Windsor rep acting dynasty; the principal editors to Windsor rep acting dynasty are CalfLiver and Theehnwor
 * WalkingOnTheB Articles for deletion/Solent Thrashers (2nd nomination), where TheFrontDeskMust, MarlovianPlough and Personofi successively voted "delete".

I've again requested checkuser in the hope of clarifying this one way or the other. If that request is accepted this time, I would ask that all non-stale accounts previously named also be checked. If checkuser is declined I request a detailed investigation based on the behavioural evidence (which in my opinion is overwhelming). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Following 's addition of Red Cafetiere, I've now added Gabby Road, Refereee and Xanadu Reacher above, based mostly on comments by below.
 * Gabby Road overlaps with the others only at Articles for deletion/Windsor rep acting dynasty, where the verbose "keep" vote is closely comparable to those of "Theatre Royal, Windsor" and RoodEnd
 * Refereee overlaps at Sam Wanamaker Award and Owle Schreame Awards
 * Xanadu Reacher only has edits to Sam Wanamaker Award and Ian Charleson Awards
 * Red Cafetiere has numerous edits to Brice Stratford. On 10 September 2014 MarlovianPlough the text to read "notable for containing the first Stage Jig in over 400 years on the archeological site of the Elizabethan Rose theatre".  On 6 April 2015 Red Cafetiere  this text "on the archeological site of the Elizabethan Rose Theatre, in a production notable for containing the first stage jig in that space in over 400 years" with the edit comment "production is not inherently notable, it is notable (and thus included in this article) for its historically significant stage jig - the source makes that clear, and so should the article". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

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


 * Comment: Strongly recommend CheckUser and a detailed investigation of the overwhelming behavioral evidence in this case and in the other accounts previously noted in the quickly archived case. I have other accounts to add but it will take some time to amass because there are so many of them and because this disruptive activity has been going on so long, in spurts. I reported the situation to in August 2014  (see other not-yet-named accounts in that Talk-page report:, and now that I look,  as well), but the farm was so malicious and vindictive on articles I had written or was monitoring that I did not want to file an SPI for fear of further disruption and reprisals. Much of the farm started their activity and account-opening in June through August of 2014; some of them now appear to have been sleeper accounts doing a handful of diversionary edits back then, only to awaken now to vote on the AfDs and such. I have much more to say, but it will take time to compile the evidence. I do not personally think one should take at face value the breezy excuses of the articles' main subject, BriceStratford. There is too much crossover in terms of identical edit patterns and even diversionary tactics for this to all be simply people living together or of the same mind. Sincerely, Softlavender (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * One Example of diversionary tactic(s):, on their first day of editing , makes minuscule edits to 15 different random articles, then makes 3-word !votes on 16 AfDs (mostly "_______ per nom"), before getting to what they were really here for: voting at the Articles for deletion/Owle Schreame Awards, like another sock. Then voted on a couple other AfDs for good measure, before doing some Owle Schreame legwork and then going after the Ian Charleson Awards like the other socks at that time (in sometimes faux-supportive diversionary edits as a distraction/distinction from the other socks or simply game-playing), and so on. Then disappeared for three months, woke back up to make some diversionary edits, and then onto the real focus: the article(s) in question of that "acting dynasty". Softlavender (talk) 11:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment 3: A couple more observations: Not yet mentioned: Except for a bot and a wiki-cleaner, since July 1, 2014 Sam Wanamaker Award has been edited only by the sock farm (which includes ), and only to directly or indirectly promote the Owle Schreame Awards, with the exception of some diversionary "helpful" edits by MarlovianPlough, who also made a diversionary "helpful" single edit to Ian Charleson (which had to be reverted because it was in fact not helpful and seems one way or another to have been game-playing or sheer diversion). Softlavender (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Conclusion: If these 24 users (possibly more; I haven't checked all the new articles for signs) listed above and in the archive are not a sock farm or a couple of sock farms, then this is a highly concerted effort at disruptive (and in my opinion dissembling) COI editing, and should be censured and stopped one way or another, even if (some of) the articles in question have merit. Softlavender (talk) 12:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, Brice Stratford here: As I said in the previous SPI, I'm a little overwhelmed by all of this. I access wikipedia (fairly rarely) from a shared connection in the extremely large warehouse conversion that acts as a performance space, public cafe, offices for our theatre company and various others, as well as living space for a few members of it. We all share internet (as do the public and a few who have no connection with the company), and have a tendency to use each others computers fairly freely. Obviously we do have a team of people here who are dedicated to and passionate about promoting and making a record of our work, many of whom are young interns - I think perhaps that a combination of eager, competitive arts professionals, over-enthusiasm and general inexperience/ignorance of wikipedia's rules has all lead to something of a situation. I can only apologise for any problems caused, and assure you that there's been no malicious intent or intentional disingenuousness, only misplaced good faith and naivety. Do please do whatever you see fit with whichever pages are in question, and once again: apologies for any complications.

I would also say, however, that this is beginning to feel a little like a personal and borderline obsessive attack. I rarely use wikipedia as an editor and have no real understanding of what it is I'm being accused of. It's perfectly likely that a number of the more fanatical fans, enthused audience members, volunteers and employees who have come across our work are being very active on the site, perhaps even inappropriately, but I can't comment on that. I wish you all the best with whatever you feel it is appropriate to do, but would respectfully ask if good faith could be assumed and personal attacks could be stopped. With, as I say, the greatest of respect. BriceStratford (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Um. Am I correct in thinking that a CheckUser has been requested against me for no reason other than my voting Keep on an article that JustLettersAndNumbers wants deleted? No other justification or behavioural evidence has been given. I do not see how this request is appropriate in my case. RoodEnd (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Hey, just seen that this is a thing. Full Disclosure: I work in an office which is in the same building as the owl scream company's office. Occasionally I say hello. That's it. No COI. WalkingOnTheB (talk) 10:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment This and the last batch are an obvious, massive farm that is WP:GAME gaming the system, and doing it better than I've ever seen. Mr. Stafford registers accounts at different times and takes care to give them different edit histories, calls upon his sock puppetry to push his agenda when the need arises, and then uses said planned account histories in conjunction with a convenient story of a bunch of fanatics living in a warehouse together to evade punishment. User:RoodEnd probably shouldn't even understand what a checkuser is. I could go on forever, but the point is Stafford will probably get away with it again. --DawnDusk (talk) 07:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Couldn't have said it better myself. And since he is an actor, he can easily put on a show, change personas, ingratiate admins/clerks, charm his way with excuses, and talk a blue streak. In point of fact, not only is this entire farm extremely COI, it has been (in the beginning) one of the most malicious farms I've come across (and, again, why I never wanted to report the first instances of their behavior). There is a small possibility that the farm is actually two people (possibly three), but for the whole lot of them (now approaching 30 or more) to be 30+ different people moving in tandem as one just is not true. Softlavender (talk) 09:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * i have been late to this and came here from WP:COIN, which i try to stay on top of. Editing-wise, there is very clear COI meat or sockpuppetting here - all aimed - as BriceStratford wrote above, to promote what they do].  This is one of the most egregious cases I have seen.  They should be indeffed.  just added a new one to the list above, Red Cafetiere.  will come back with diffs...... Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Reply to : we have a difficult situation here: there is extensive grossly inappropriate behaviour by a very large number of accounts, which needs to be decisively stopped; that behaviour seems to be exclusively concerned with you and various aspects of your life and work, so the editor or editors behind those accounts must be in some way connected with you. I can see that this may feel like an attack on you personally, but it is in a sense also an attempt to clear your name – those editors are bringing you into disrepute here. Equally, if is unconnected with those editors, this process will make that clear. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, i spent about 4 hours gathering the behavioral evidence below.  This does not appear to be even close to all of it.

some additional involved users.
 * account blocked for username vio


 * listing out promo edits:
 * QualityEngli edit summary first edit Mar 4, 2015. 2 edits to date, two promo.  WP:SPA.   no declaration of COI. has never used a talk page.
 * add promo language
 * add content about company


 * CalfLiver edit summary first edit Jun 2, 2014. ~55 edits. every one related to BriceStratford.  no Talk discussions. SPA.
 * created category that is up for deletion
 * uploaded one image to Commons related to coat of arms, used in Stratford family (England) article, described as "own work" See images made by Personofi described below.  File was uploaded 19:18, 2 June 2014; was added to article minutes later.  note that prior edit was by another member of this group, BishopRick9, 6 hours before, and that user was writing about the coat of arms.
 * promo
 * promo
 * promo categorizing
 * promo categorizing
 * promo categorizing
 * promo categorizing
 * promo categorizing on promo article
 * etc.


 * Theehnwor edit summary first edit Mar 29, 2015, 25 edits, every one related to Stratford and the "dynasty"   SPA. no Talk.
 * created article with promo title Windsor rep acting dynasty after adding content about that to several articles, all edits after are more of the same.


 * LlowCro - edit summary first edit 27 March 2015. about 60 edits. every single one related to Stratford and the "dynasty"  SPA. has never talked. created four articles all related to this stuff.
 * Elizabeth Counsell 2015-03-27
 * Jean Miller 2015-03-28
 * John Counsell (theatre director) 2015-03-28
 * Dee Ocleppo 2015-03-28 (wife of Tommy Hilfiger and... maternal cousin to Brice Stafford. all in same breath. oy.)


 * Personofi edit summary first edit Aug 2014. ~116 edits, nothing on Talk except for one AfD discussion. SPA for Stratfords and Brice etc. with a very few exceptions like this and this)
 * uploaded 2 files to commons - pic of statford and putative stratford coat of arms
 * one of those is:
 * described as "A publicity shot of Brice Stratford in character as Ralph Roister Doister, from the Owle Schreame theatre company's 2015 production of the play at the Bread & Roses Theatre (London, England) - the first full, uncut, professional performance of the play on record." (so WP:PROMO)
 * source is "own work" (!)
 * author is named as Simon Bendix Borregaard - seems to be true per this article
 * used only in Ralph Roister Doister in WP:PROMO edit for Stafford's company
 * NOTE in that article, Persofi removed the old image in this dif, and in the next edit, which happened 20 seconds later, another of these accounts, TheFrontDeskMust, uploaded the image to the article. very clear evidence of sock or meat puppeting
 * other uploaded image is Stratford coat of arms
 * described as "freehand, then computer edit", and
 * NOTE was uploaded to Stratford family (England) article by Personofi in this dif, a few days later, ''another of these accounts, MarlovianPlough, added another iteration of this image and added a bunch of content about it. Also clear evidence of meat/socking.
 * created category, Category:Stratford family


 * MarlovianPlough edit summary: 48 edits, starting August 2, 2014. 6 AfDs included 2 related to this sock/meat farm. !votes are keep, of course.
 * has written on their user page: "Hello! I am the Marlovian Plough. I am committed to truth, neutrality, and history." uh huh.
 * More diverse than other members of this group
 * some random/unproductive things like this)
 * has done some desultory Talk series of diffs at Shakespeare article
 * cleaned up a different theater award article
 * contribs to AfDs are desulory "delete per x" here, here, here, here in fast succession.
 * proposed to delete 3 other family categories in fast succession, here, here, here
 * next edit was adding categories to Stratford family (England)
 * as discussed above, sock/meated with Personofi to add image to Stratford family (England)
 * removed COI/sourcing tags from Brice Stratford article about COI, etc. and added promo content: "Historically significant work has included his 2011 Measure for Measure (which contained the first Stage Jig in over 400 years on the archeological site of the Elizabethan Rose theatre)...." (zoiks)


 * one file uploaded to Commons (award for Owle Schreame Awards
 * description is quite detailed: "The engraved glass skull of the Owle Schreame Award, this one presented to Passion in Practice for their work in Original Pronunciation at the inaugural award ceremony in 2014"
 * described as "own work" but author is "James Thompson"
 * uploaded to commons at 18 September 2014; added to article by same user a few minutes later (no socking there)


 * PeggyMa edit summary: 20 edits, starting Aug 11, 2014. Pure SPA. (edits on other theater award categories too)
 * adding badly sourced content to Owle Schraeme award
 * removed copyvio tag placed by bot here - article had been created by BriceStatford here with the copyvio content. and BriceStratford edited the article 2 minutes later. Terrible.
 * added promo content to Brice Stratford article
 * added unsupported category to Brice Stratford article
 * more promo to Brice Stratford article


 * TheFrontDeskMust edit summary: account opened Aug 10, 2014. 101 edits.
 * 7 articles created - note the classic SEO strategy with redirects.
 * John Counsell 2015-03-28	log ·	page history ·	topedits
 * Secret Cinema · (redirect) 2014-12-15
 * Francis Fulford (born 1953) · (redirect) 2014-10-29
 * The owle schreame award · (redirect) 2014-08-11
 * Owle schreame award · (redirect) 2014-08-11
 * The owl scream awards · (redirect) 2014-08-11
 * The owl scream award · (redirect) 2014-08-11
 * Owl Scream Awards · (redirect) 2014-08-11
 * Owl scream award · (redirect) 2014-08-11
 * per contribs you see some classic editing around (mostly tagging) to get started, then a series of AfDs in quick succession ("delete per x", etc)
 * Aug 11, makes first on-target edit, to theater awards category, and notably, the edit note says, "Removed tautology - as Softlavendar says elsewehere: "'Winners' of this award (singular) are only the first prize winners". surprising with full-blown knowledge of past discussions. and seems to refer not to softlavender, but rather to edit by other sock, whose earlier edit note read "Reduced list of award winners on this page to just the First Prize Winners, moved the exhaustive list to the pre-existing List of Ian Charleson Award winners"
 * then a bunch of edits to that award and the Owl award, adding bad sources, more categories. here and here
 * removed COI, tone, etc tags here with edit note "Edited with an unbiased, objective, encyclopaedic perspective and tone". while adding SPS sources.  argh.
 * moved article about a current guy named John Counsell and created a disambig page for John Counsell (head of "dynasty" )  So clearly tied to BriceStratford's interests.


 * RichElph edit summary: first edit Nov 20, 2013, 3 edits. That's all.
 * created Brice Stratford article did nothing else here.


 * Cremlo89 edit summary: first edit Mar 11, 2015. 19 edits. everyone is about Owl awards


 * Evadlion edit summary: first edit Aug 2, 2014. 4 edits.
 * one of them was creating Owle Schreame Awards
 * added content about that two to other articles.
 * two weeks ago, added ref (that may be bogus and that these socks have been using a lot) to another article related to "dynasty"


 * Red Cafetiere Cafetiere&project=en.wikipedia.org edit summary: first edit Mar 30, 2015. 46 edits. 2 contribs to random AfDs.  half of edits were one day of editing to [{Brice Stratford]
 * whole run here - adding tons of promo. ugh.


 * Theatre Royal, Windsor Royal, Windsor&project=en.wikipedia.org edit summary: first edit Mar 30, 2015, 5 edits
 * voted !keep at Articles for deletion/Windsor rep acting dynasty in very elaborate diff
 * other 4 are to related articles, more padding/promo


 * RoodEnd edit summary: first edit, 14 June 2014. ~20 edits.
 * started with edits to other theaters. seemingly significant contributions to Blackfriars Theater were reverted for copying from another article
 * first major contribution was elaborate ~vote to "keep" at Articles for deletion/Windsor rep acting dynasty


 * Gabby Road Road&project=en.wikipedia.org edit summary: first edit Dec 14, 2014, 37 edits.
 * 7 diffs that did little to [[Francis Fulford (reality television)].
 * (NOTE - TheFrontDeskMust also worked on this article, moved it
 * see also this sequence:
 * series of edits by Gabby to Secret Cinema (company)
 * 5 minutes later, edit by TheFrontDeskMust
 * 20 minutes later, another run by Gabby begins
 * then finally, looong !vote to keep at Articles for deletion/Windsor rep acting dynasty, in conjunction with adding a chunk of unsourced content to the subject article.


 * WalkingOnTheB edit summary: first edit Sep 20, 2014; 24 edits. contributed to 12 AfDs, including the one on Windsor dynasty. One of the edits is also a comment at his own SPI.
 * nominated Solvent Thashers for deletion (group project; see below)
 * did some random football editing (like others of these accounts)
 * keep !vote at Windsor AfD
 * comment at SPI, "Hey, just seen that this is a thing. Full Disclosure: I work in an office which is in the same building as the owl scream company's office. Occasionally I say hello. That's it. No COI." With the edit history, not likely.


 * Elephantbronze edit summary, created 03:07, 30 March 2015, 26 edits
 * note that the AfD for the Windsor dynasty article was created 00:08, 30 March 2015
 * Special:Contributions/Elephantbronze - first edit is ridiculous; next few are to other AfDs.
 * largest contrib by miles is to AfD on Windsors.


 * Feast is Feast edit summary, created 2:47, 30 March 2015, 7 edits
 * note that the AfD for the Windsor dynasty article was created 00:08, 30 March 2015
 * Special:Contributions/Feast_is_Feast - first edit is to AfD; others are desulotory


 * Refereee edit summary first edit Aug 3, 2014. 13 edits.
 * per contribs, did some desultory article tagging to get autoconfirmed.
 * added fake ref to Owle Schreame Awards in this dif (see below)
 * fixed mistake made by another sock in this dif.


 * Group efforts at AfD
 * Articles for deletion/Solent Thrashers (2nd nomination): WalkingOnTheB, TheFrontDeskMust, MarlovianPlough, Personofi.  Only non-sock vote is Dirtlawyer1.  This was a railroad job.
 * Articles for deletion/Windsor rep acting dynasty Feast is Feast, Theatre Royal, Windsor, WalkingOnTheB, RoodEnd, Gabby Road.  That is most of the !voting there.

OK, I spent way too much time on that. Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * sharing of fake refs:
 * Dickensen, Elinor. "New Awards for Ancient Theatre", Cambridge News. 11th July, 2014
 * was added here to Brice Stratford by Theehnwor.
 * Was also added to Owle Schreame Awards in this dif by Refereee..
 * No such article exists. see this search.  removed it.Jytdog (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * . I don't see anything new here since the last decline. The article has been deleted. The accounts have stopped editing. Many of the "new" accounts are stale. This is a time sink. Closing--Bbb23 (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
I have just no idea why the extensive and apparently conclusive evidence presented in 2015 led to exactly no action – I couldn't understand it then and I still can't understand it now. However, that's water under the bridge. There's been some recent attention given to this massive sockfarm, mostly thanks to. User Cwhillubbyy, who I blocked for copyright violations in May 2022, is clearly part of it (edits to Brice Stratford, John Stratford (verderer), Stratford Lyon etc). CV has turned up other more recent socks – Craneshore, Jonto95 and Dennyala – and has indeffed them all. CU requested in case there are yet more of these lurking in the undergrowth. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I was not part of the original SPI, but I assume there was no block because the sockmaster gamed the system and did not overlap the accounts in linear time. I summed it up on the user talk of the socks I blocked: He edits up to warnings or a block, then abandons the account and starts a new one. He repeated the pattern, creating 30 -50 WP:SPAs that did not overlap. The ones I blocked were for spamming/astroturfing and disruption, including fabrication of false citations.
 * There is an additional sleeper account that does overlap multiple socks. It reawakened once we started reverting and blocking the new spam socks. Their first edit, and many edits since, have been identical to the sockdrawer. They are engaging more, but still being pushy about promotional editing / astroturfing for this individual of borderline notability:




 * Dancing Badger has edited the main COI articles, and has overlapped editing with Cwhillubbyy on Brice Stratford so can definitely be classed as a sock.


 * Dancing Badger account created 20:47, July 14, 2015, after SPI closed and Brice Stratford article deleted. They disclosed previous accounts, which followed the same pattern - abandoning them and starting new ones, instead of doing a name change. Admitted accounts:
 * Jan 2016, the Brice Stratford promotion with Dancing Badter account begins with removal of COI tag on on Owle Scream Theatre
 * Feb 2016 removal of COI tag on Brice Stratford
 * Edits only sparsely over the years, reemerging in 2022 to add content to Brice Stratford:diff. The second addition has the predictive text: "His first two books, New Forest Myths and Folklore and Anglo-Saxon Myths: the Struggle for the Seven Kingdoms, are due for publication in 2022.diff This is an indicator of likely connection to subject, or it's the subject himself.
 * Account goes dark for almost a year. Then wakes up at the same time as the astroturfing spammers start hitting the 'pedia promoting Stratford's books.
 * Dancing Badger removes COI flag, reinserts promotional text about Stratford that was added by sock
 * Same action on another COI article; then claimed to have "cleaned" and verified cites, but just re-inserted the same dubious blog cite and the incomplete TLS one I had to search through archives to fine and make sure the content was not fabricated: diff (sockfarm has fabricated cites before)
 * Goes back to work on Brice Stratford main article, claiming he's cleaning it up, but adds puffery and removes COI flag once again without discussion: diff. Then continues to edit, including reverting additional editors who remove puffery:diff, diff. And again:edit warring now, and again
 * There are other tells in the contribs, as well. This is the account he's used to edit other theatre articles and mostly behave himself. But with the other socks being blocked, I think he slipped up with this one and gave the game away. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 21:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Goes back to work on Brice Stratford main article, claiming he's cleaning it up, but adds puffery and removes COI flag once again without discussion: diff. Then continues to edit, including reverting additional editors who remove puffery:diff, diff. And again:edit warring now, and again
 * There are other tells in the contribs, as well. This is the account he's used to edit other theatre articles and mostly behave himself. But with the other socks being blocked, I think he slipped up with this one and gave the game away. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 21:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

 also overlaps The Dancing Badger editing on Brice Stratford: Editor Interaction Utility (use this link; the link up top with all the sock names is overloaded now and not showing all the edits.) Edits other articles of interest to the sockdrawer, for instance on Brice Stratford: There are other socks in the edit history, of course, but this is one that clearly overlaps with his currently active account. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 17:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * February 2, 2016 The Dancing Badger Removes COI tag, says "see talk" but doesn't engage on talk.
 * August 23, 2022 TriggerLetto Removes notability tag without adding citations or engaging on talk
 * February 16, 2023 TriggerLetto again removes notability tag, adds praise, info on release of books.
 * April 24, 2023 The Dancing Badger again removes COI and notability tags, begins edit warring to repeatedly remove them.

Comments by other users

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

With all due respect, I think you're making this personal and assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is part of the sock farm. I've got a long and perfectly respectable edit history and am a little insulted by your accusation. Your argument seems to be based on the fact that I have edited Brice Stratford before (I often edit historical theatre articles) and that I (correctly) removed the COI and notability tags. This was according to the proper wikipedia procedure, and it is you who have in fact behaved inappropriately in this. According to Template:COI - "In order to be tagged, the article should have a specific, articulatable, fixable problem. Do not apply this tag simply because you suspect COI editing, or because there is or was a COI editor. COI editors can be added to the talk page. The COI tag should be removed once the problem is fixed." On this basis I do not see what the "specific, articulatable, fixable problem" (nor have you given it), and instead you merely "suspect COI editing ... because there is or was a COI editor". That does not fulfil the COI tag criteria. According to Template:Notability - "If you find an article that is tagged as having notability concerns, and you are certain that enough in-depth, independent sources have been published about the subject to overcome any notability issues, then you may remove this tag. It is highly desirable, but not technically required, for you to add a list of good sources to the article or its talk page, so that other editors will know about the existence of these sources." This has been done. Further according to Template:Notability - "The template must not be re-added. Please do not edit war over it. Questions of notability can be resolved through discussion or through Articles for deletion. If the article exists within the scope of a specific WikiProject it may be beneficial to invite feedback from the group." This clearly establishes that I was correct in removing both tags, and that not only should they not have been re-added without justification, but that there is nothing whatsoever suspicious in my correctly applying Wikipedia procedure. Not only that, but Template:Notability also states: "Do not place this message on an article that has already survived a discussion at Articles for deletion as "keep". This is not a badge of shame to show your disagreement with the AFD outcome." Certainly it seems there's COI and sockpuppeting going on, but that's completely irrelevant to whether or not these tags should be there, which they demonstrably should not. You are using them as a "badge of shame", which is explicitly precluded, and attempting to bully me with unfounded accusations simply because I've pointed out that you're in the wrong. Please justify the tags according to the proper criteria, and do feel free to investigate me as sockpuppet. The accusation is ridiculous. The Dancing Badger (talk) 23:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope, nothing personal at all. I saw the astroturfing, started dealing with it, and then this account showed up and fits the pattern. Other editors have also emailed me with concerns about this account being part of the farm. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 23:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you explain exactly what this "pattern" is that I fit? From what you've written above I don't see much at all. I'll take your points one by one:
 * "Dancing Badger account created 20:47, July 14, 2015, after SPI closed and Brice Stratford article deleted. They disclosed previous accounts, which followed the same pattern - abandoning them and starting new ones, instead of doing a name change.
 * This has no bearing on anything, and is at best a vague coincidence, and even then not much of a coincidence.
 * Jan 2016, the Brice Stratford promotion with Dancing Badter account begins with removal of COI tag on on Owle Scream Theatre
 * Feb 2016 removal of COI tag on Brice Stratford
 * Both of these removals were correct and justified according to Template:COI, and there is nothing suspicious in having come across related articles in a subject which I have a long established research interest in. There is nothing improper, and the objection seems simpy to be that I was constructively repairing the article according to Wikipedian standards rather than simply attacking it to punish the subject.
 * Edits only sparsely over the years, reemerging in 2022 to add content to Brice Stratford:diff. The second addition has the predictive text: "His first two books, New Forest Myths and Folklore and Anglo-Saxon Myths: the Struggle for the Seven Kingdoms, are due for publication in 2022.diff This is an indicator of likely connection to subject, or it's the subject himself.
 * Account goes dark for almost a year. Then wakes up at the same time as the astroturfing spammers start hitting the 'pedia promoting Stratford's books.
 * I am semi-retired from Wikipedia, and browse far more often than I edit. My reemergence as editor (after less than a year) was due to the flurry of activity on an article I'd previously edited. There was nothing "predictive" about the text, as it had been publicly announced, was findable with a simple Google, was relevant to the article, and was cited properly. Again, this was a justified and appropriate edit, and there is nothing improper except for the fact it was an attempt at constructively repairing the article rather than simply attacking it.
 * Dancing Badger removes COI flag, reinserts promotional text about Stratford that was added by sock
 * Same action on another COI article
 * I reverted destructive edits from you, which were not justified by Template:COI, and the (valid) sources of which you had made no effort to verify or to tag for verification. Again, you are claiming that I was in the wrong simply because I was properly upholding Wikipedia's procedures and constructively repairing articles that are within my specialist interests. There is nothing "suspicious" in that, and certainly nothing wrong in my actions.
 * Goes back to work on Brice Stratford main article, claiming he's cleaning it up, but adds puffery and removes COI flag once again without discussion: diff. Then continues to edit, including reverting additional editors who remove puffery:diff, diff. And again:edit warring now
 * I cleaned up the main article at your explicit instruction, and notified you of the fact I would do so in advance. I did not add puffery, I added evidence of notability under the heading of "Reception", which is standard practice on author pages, and was in overt response to your notability tag. Positive critical reception in prominent publications and/or from prominent figures is an appropriate addition to an article where notability is in doubt. You tagged the article as non-notable, and then reacted with hostility to the addition of evidence of notability. It was not puffery. Again, my removal of the COI tag was completely in line with the correct practice outlined on Template:COI, which does not specify that discussion on the talk page beforehand is a necessity, or that it was warranted in this case.
 * There are other tells in the contribs, as well. This is the account he's used to edit other theatre articles and mostly behave himself. But with the other socks being blocked, I think he slipped up with this one and gave the game away.
 * Please explain what these "other tells" are and I will be happy to refute them. This final point seems just to be that I edit articles in theatre and history and Shakespearean theatre. Many, many, many others do, and it would be more suspicious if I was editing an article about a Shakespearean director without any past interest in Shakespearean theatre.
 * In summary, the entirety of your argument is that I have an interest in Shakespearean theatre and contribute to articles related to it, that instead of joining you in destructive edits to an article that needed improving I attempted to clean and repair it, and that I behaved according to the officially established Wikipedian procedures where your improper tagging was concerned.
 * I believe that this is a bad faith accusation designed to bully somebody who is resisting the destructive editing of an article as a means of shaming or punishing the subject for promotional edits and/or sockpuppetry. As my accuser is too experienced a Wikipedian to seriously believe that the above barrel-scraping is persuasive evidence of my being a sock also, I cannot believe that she is genuine in her accusation. I further cannot believe that such an experienced Wikipedian is so ignorant of Template:COI and Template:Notability as to be ignorant of the appropriateness of my actions in this, and of the inappropriateness of her own.
 * The Dancing Badger (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The pattern is established by the editing patterns of the other socks. Someone with COI should not remove the templates. You removed the templates, with multiple accounts, without engaging on talk until very recently. Sometimes you turned up simply to removed the template. In some earlier edits you would say, "per talk" or "see talk" without posting on talk. Admins who are familiar with the earlier case and who've looked at the contribs of the blocked socks can see the patterns. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 00:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no COI, and have not used multiple accounts in any way that isn't properly justified and allowed for by the rules. I am not a sock, nor am I associated with the sock farm. Each template removal was correct according to the procedures specified in the respective template article. Why were they added in the first place when the template articles did not justify their being added? It is you who were in the wrong, not I. Which admins are accusing me alongside you? I'm certainly entitled to know that so that I can properly defend myself. Furthermore, you aren't saying what these vague patterns actually are, just saying that lots of people see them (who?). This is all moot, anyway. I believe I have provided considerable evidence that your accusation is in bad faith, and as I have provided reasonable justification to counter each of your points, were your accusation in good faith you would have responded positively and engaged with that. You have not, and are instead clinging to nameless others and vague, unspecified patterns which you can't define, ignoring the points made against you. I expect an apology when it is demonstrated that I am not a sock and have no COI, and I expect some justification from you for your repeated improper and destructive use of COI and Notability tags in overt conflict with the procedures outlined on the template pages. The Dancing Badger (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment by Softlavender: This sockfarm has been a nightmare since at least the summer of 2014, and there were opportunities to address and stop it then and in 2015 which were unfortunately not taken because the size and scale of the mess, disruption, trolling, and vandalism the sockfarm (more than 30 accounts at that time; who knows how many by now) had engaged in was deemed a "timesink" by the clerk who happened to respond to the 2015 SPI. I agree with and support every word posted by JLAN and CorbieVreccan in the filing section. This is a massive sockfarm all revolving around Brice Stratford, his activities and interests, and his extended family. If this farm is not dealt with here I believe an ANI (or AN) thread may need to be opened for LTA actions such as sitebanning, LTA documentation, etc. And the current apparent Stratford iteration/sock/meat may have to be pblocked from the discussion, because one of his recurring MOs is to stun, disable, WP:BLUDGEON, and disrupt discussions via repeated massive walls of text. By the way, spent countless hours (along with myself) fighting the sockfarm for many years; unfortunately he is no longer on Wikipedia since 2019. Also, since many of the sockfarm's contributions have been rightfully deleted, I as a non-admin am no longer able to view those. But all of the evidence presented in the 2015 SPI (and here) can be viewed by admins because they can see deleted content. Softlavender (talk) 03:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not an "apparent Stratford iteration/sock/meat", nor am I disabling or bludgeoning with walls of text. This is victimisation in bad faith, based on shoddy, arbitrary, circumstantial evidence solely because I disagree with your incorrect use of notability and COI tags as punishment, which runs contrary to the template pages. I have a right to respond to defend myself from the accusation, which I have done. My "wall of text" was in response to that, point by point, and to demonstrate exactly what the procedural justification was for all of my editing actions. It was entirely justified, clearly. I do not care about the sock puppet case except to say that I am not one, and that the mere existence of this case does not justify treating me as if I am one, nor does it justify the improper punitive use of COI and Notability tags in a manner contrary to their respective template articles. The Dancing Badger (talk) 10:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Note to closing administrator: has unilaterally removed COI tags from Brice Stratford four times without discussion or consensus:, , , . -- Softlavender (talk) 19:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Many thanks,, it's good to get some solid confirmation on this even if it's taken eight years to get there. Now there's a massive clean-up to be done. I see that you've CU-tagged the Dennyala account, but it's not listed below (not that it greatly matters, of course). Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Good spot - I've added them below, they too are confirmed to this batch. Girth Summit  (blether)  10:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Girth Summit! - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 19:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * -  Girth Summit  (blether)  09:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The following accounts are ✅ to one another:
 * I don't have any technical way of comparing them to the master, but we can call them confirmed to one another, and suspected to the master. Girth Summit  (blether)  09:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Also blocking the two stale accounts that are self-confessed as being connected to The Dancing Badger (The Singing Badger and Worryaway Sorry). That just leaves Cwhillubbyy, which is blocked and stale. Girth Summit  (blether)  09:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have any technical way of comparing them to the master, but we can call them confirmed to one another, and suspected to the master. Girth Summit  (blether)  09:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Also blocking the two stale accounts that are self-confessed as being connected to The Dancing Badger (The Singing Badger and Worryaway Sorry). That just leaves Cwhillubbyy, which is blocked and stale. Girth Summit  (blether)  09:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have any technical way of comparing them to the master, but we can call them confirmed to one another, and suspected to the master. Girth Summit  (blether)  09:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Also blocking the two stale accounts that are self-confessed as being connected to The Dancing Badger (The Singing Badger and Worryaway Sorry). That just leaves Cwhillubbyy, which is blocked and stale. Girth Summit  (blether)  09:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have any technical way of comparing them to the master, but we can call them confirmed to one another, and suspected to the master. Girth Summit  (blether)  09:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Also blocking the two stale accounts that are self-confessed as being connected to The Dancing Badger (The Singing Badger and Worryaway Sorry). That just leaves Cwhillubbyy, which is blocked and stale. Girth Summit  (blether)  09:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have any technical way of comparing them to the master, but we can call them confirmed to one another, and suspected to the master. Girth Summit  (blether)  09:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Also blocking the two stale accounts that are self-confessed as being connected to The Dancing Badger (The Singing Badger and Worryaway Sorry). That just leaves Cwhillubbyy, which is blocked and stale. Girth Summit  (blether)  09:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have any technical way of comparing them to the master, but we can call them confirmed to one another, and suspected to the master. Girth Summit  (blether)  09:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Also blocking the two stale accounts that are self-confessed as being connected to The Dancing Badger (The Singing Badger and Worryaway Sorry). That just leaves Cwhillubbyy, which is blocked and stale. Girth Summit  (blether)  09:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Also blocking the two stale accounts that are self-confessed as being connected to The Dancing Badger (The Singing Badger and Worryaway Sorry). That just leaves Cwhillubbyy, which is blocked and stale. Girth Summit  (blether)  09:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)