Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Carola56/Archive

Evidence submitted by Nickm57
The appearance of a user ID very similar to mine yesterday Nickm58bari has forced me to make this report. User Carola56, Caitcatt, Bagdadjenny and Nickm58bari are almost certainly same person. I have had a few common edits with Carola56 – as he is an old boy at the school I work at. He drew attention to himself by ringing me at school to discuss/complain about my WP editing. Most recently he took exception to my deleting a relatively unknown pedophile he had added to the Northcote High School “Notable Alumni” section. I confronted him over two of the user ids he uses, on my talk page - his response was to rather foolishly delete it, although he had logged on anonymously. Note- The edit summary syntax used by all four user IDs is very similar. The interests are similar – Australian Labor politics, politics and politicians from South Eastern Australia generally, a page on the Murder of Keith William Allan, lists of notable people. The language used on various other user talk pages is identical and usually relates to a common problem of his misunderstanding of WP notability. It often ends with thanks to other users for their professionalism. See Kwong Lee Dow discussion at [], Roman Hruska discussion at [] I loath doing this - WP needs to be a "broad church", but can't have him impersonating me. --Nickm57 (talk) 11:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

 * Orderinchaos

Interesting that not much has changed in 2½ months. I had nominated the primary and first two of these users for a sock check way back on 10 February 2010, although ended up deleting it before it got a response. My comments then, rescued from the deletion log for this page for transparency, were:


 * "This trio of relatively new users has been, in a very consistent way, adding WP:UNDUE stuff to Victorian political and local government topics, or topics which could reasonably include Victoria. They are obviously educated (although not possessed of excellent spelling/grammatical skills) and seem to have access to a wide variety of sources, which they use to further a fairly strong POV (e.g. the constant addition of Amy McGrath's books and articles to "further reading" lists), sometimes encroaching on WP:BLP (see for example Frank Costa). It would seem that it would fail WP:ILLEGIT if proven; i.e. a number of editors editing in such a manner as to both evade scrutiny and make it appear as if a greater number of users subscribe to their view. It's an odd case in that there's a lot of random edits scattered across a heap of articles, and apart from some obvious ones, the edits fall into an expert domain where one needs to know the subject to see the problems. I don't doubt we'll see more of this kind of thing as the Australian federal election, 2010 approaches. Orderinchaos 17:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)"

I am personally of the view this check should proceed now that two independent editors editing in two unrelated areas have had the same concerns. Orderinchaos 12:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Nickm57 (talk) 11:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Although it's obvious that User:Bagdadjenny is a WP:DUCK, the rest could use a check. Auntie E. (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It may not help if they are all coming from a school, but perhaps there are other IPs in play. But it may just come down to behavioural. Auntie E. (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's pretty straightforward, technically. Carola56, Caitcatt, Bagdadjenny, and Nickm58bari are ✅. Also editing from the same IP and computer are:
 * Given that we're told it's a school, behavioural checks will be the proof of this pudding. --jpgordon:==( o ) 19:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that we're told it's a school, behavioural checks will be the proof of this pudding. --jpgordon:==( o ) 19:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that we're told it's a school, behavioural checks will be the proof of this pudding. --jpgordon:==( o ) 19:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Clarification: Sorry if this wasnt clear. The IP address in use is NOT connected to a school. Its just the user came to my attention because he wanted to write about his old school (noteable staff, noteable alumni etc)--Nickm57 (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Behavior looks similar to me. All accounts blocked and tagged. Tim Song (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)