Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidYork71/Archive

Report date April 5 2009, 04:08 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by —  Dæ dαlus Contribs 

The account's first contribution is to request unprotection of an article which a previous DY71 sock frequented. As far as the abuse report goes for DY71, he has been known to be a POV warrior, pushing with as many socks as he has to to insert his POV into articles. Look at the user name of this brand new user, Righteous Plague. That doesn't scream a constructive contributor, especially in regards to DY71's MO. Besides that, his second and third contributions are to the talk page one of the last socks frequented, where he can be seen using a template]. This isn't something a new user would use or even know about.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  04:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

X clamation point  05:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)    Requested by —  Dæ dαlus Contribs  04:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Checkuser is required to make sure that this is indeed a sockpuppet of the massively abusive POV warrior, DY71, and to see if a new range block can be applied to prevent further abuse, at least for a period of time(he does keep coming back, after all).—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  04:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Tagged, and archiving.  Syn  ergy 20:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

IP hardblocked. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * ✅ the following as DavidYork71:

Report date April 13 2009, 04:31 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Jayron32. talk . contribs


 * He's baaaaack... You know the drill by now. He's like Lay's Potato Chips.  No one can eat just one.  In this case, one can fully expect a well developed sockfarm lurking here somewhere.  Standard request for a CheckUser to root this out, block the underlying IP, yada yada yada.


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Jayron32. talk . contribs 04:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * per Jayron.  Syn  ergy 15:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * ✅ the following:

Open proxy (also being used simultaneously by Grawp) blocked. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 *  Syn  ergy 22:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Report date May 13 2009, 01:45 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Daedalus969

User has already been blocked as a possible sock of DY71, due to a similar MO concerning the master account and previously confirmed socks.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  01:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by —  Dæ dαlus Contribs  01:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

CU is required to make sure that this new user is just that, and not another of DY71's socks. The user is claiming to not be a sock of him, despite the MO similarities, and, as such, the unblock of this user hinges upon whether they are a confirmed sock or not. Please review DY71's abuse report before looking into this further, for the low-down on this socking problem.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  01:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser Dominic already performed a check on this sock and he told me through IRC that there is reasonable technical evidence to believe this account is a sock of DavidYork71. Icestorm815 •  Talk  02:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * Already blocked and tagged by clerk  Tiptoety  talk 04:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Report date March 18 2009, 13:52 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Two accounts, and, were created on 12 March, each made one edit, and both have made a few more edits today (making minor edits to become autoconfirmed). AlwaysVictorious edited Strip search prank call scam, and Comparable2Allah edited Violence against women. Comparable2Allah became autoconfirmed and reverted Project Chanology to the version by a blocked account. has now reverted to Comparable2Allah on Violence against women and both have been blocked as suspected socks of. The account, which was created a few days before the others, edited Strip search prank call scam and Project Chanology before being blocked, but is tagged as a suspected sockpuppet of not  so YesOn8 may be a sockpuppet of DavidYork71. — Snigbrook 13:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by — Snigbrook
 * There are several already confirmed socks of YesOn8 (see User talk:YesOn8 and other suspected socks (Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of YesOn8).  also edited Troy Davis case.  An IP presumably used by YesOn8 had previously requested unprotection of the article, which had been protected after being edited by sockpuppets of DavidYork71; this makes the connection to both sockpuppeteers more likely (although the IP is in a range now blocked as a suspected open proxy). — Snigbrook  14:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * also reverted to the same version of Violence against women, so may be another sock. — Snigbrook 14:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by — Snigbrook 13:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

RFCU endorsed by Mayalld.  Syn  ergy 20:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Open proxies blocked. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * The editing pattern, UA and open proxies reminds me of banned user . Anyway, the following are ✅:

All socks blocked. Done here.  MBisanz  talk 06:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Report date June 25 2009, 13:36 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Peripitus

All of the above are, by evidence of identical edits to Muhammad and slavery, DavidYork71 socks that I've indefinitely blocked. As he's been creating semi-sleeper accounts and working to create autoconfirmed ones I'm concerned about sleepers in the drawer, or other accounts of his squirreling away to become autoconfirmed - Peripitus (Talk) 13:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Peripitus (Talk) 13:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * ✅ all of the above, as well as, , and . Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Report date July 28 2009, 03:56 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * Evidence submitted by DoctorW

I haven't dealt with this topic before, so am not clear on procedure. I reverted an addition of "Scientology" to a number of psychology-related pages, went to the new user (User:Mike Rinder's) contributions to see what other pages he'd inappropriately edited (every single edit seemed inappropriate to me, though I didn't revert all of them), and noticed that his very first edit ever was to add a "wikiquote" template, a highly unlikely first-ever edit for a new user. -Do c t orW  03:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * Already dealt with. This is a sock of banned user . Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Per above. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 22:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Report date August 1 2009, 17:50 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Both users tried to add fluff to L. Ron Hubbard in a similar vein. Scientologist Perspective was blocked for a username violation, while DianeticsBridgeToKnowingness was blocked for disruption and falsely calling myself and Toddst1 trolls. Unblock request from DianeticsBridgeToKnowingness clearly indicates that this is not a new user--requesting sweep to find master account. Blueboy96 17:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Blueboy96


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Blueboy96 17:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

. Obviously not a new user, as per the evidence above. Likely some old troll, but a CU would have to look further here. -- Kanonkas :  Talk 23:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * ✅, also . – Luna Santin (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ugh, when I saw Mumia Abu-Jamal in the contrib history, I knew it had to be . ✅. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 13:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * - All blocked and tagged

Report date October 27 2009, 01:06 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Is a WP:DUCK, first edit is nearly identical to DY71's socking on the page. The edit summary is nearly identical as well. Pattern of abuse on that article, with socks making the same edit over and over. The Wordsmith Communicate 01:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by The Wordsmith Communicate


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * EntrainedWithinScope and BestEncapsulation confirmed and blocked. Brandon (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * Tagged appropriately. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 01:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Report date November 1 2009, 01:46 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

First edit by this user was to remove a tag on an article--not something you'd expect from a new user. Contribution history suggests a very unusual familarity with our policies, and the anti-Semitic tenor of his edits is very similar to that of DavidYork71. Blueboy96 01:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Blueboy96


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Blueboy96 01:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * ❌. Brandon (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Marking as closed as moot. Both accounts already indefinitely blocked. MuZemike 18:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * Changed "concern that he may be a sockpuppet" template to indefblocked. GrooveDog &bull; i'm groovy. 02:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by DrKiernan
Similar editing pattern: focusing on Mumia Abu-Jamal. DrKiernan (talk) 08:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by DrKiernan (talk) 08:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

✅, also. I have a small range that was used by him only in the last months. -- Luk  talk 16:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Remaining confirmed account User:Thundersperm blocked; both accounts tagged. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 15:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Cirt

 * 1) Australia-related BLP disruption
 * 2) Scientology-related disruption
 * 3) Changes WP:GA-rated article Project Chanology to past-tense
 * Not sure if related, but compare username "Lies Well" with "Doing Well", username of a previously blocked SPA. Cirt (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Cirt (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Indef blocked per WP:DUCK. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 23:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * to look for socks and a possible IP block. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 23:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * - no other socks that I can see - A l is o n  ❤ 01:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Cirt
-- Cirt (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * , an already blocked suspected sock of banned User:DavidYork71, made these edits to article page Rehabilitation Project Force: and
 * , a Scientology SPA account, made a very similar pattern of edits to the exact same article, in the same attempts to remove the word "controversial" from the article,, , ,.
 * , previously blocked for violating sanctions from WP:ARBSCI, similar username to "Lieswell",

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

 * He's catching up - he now tries to edit his own long time abuse report - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/DavidYork71&oldid=360289062 which has now been semi-protected SatuSuro 14:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by -- Cirt (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Tim Song (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The only non-blocked sock is stale. I'm not sure what you want from me. --Deskana (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * - all that needs to be done has been done. Tim Song (talk) 00:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Cirt

 * 1) -- An already blocked sock of User:DavidYork71, changing header on article related to Scientology, Rehabilitation Project Force, to remove "controversy" and instead paint a whitewashing portrayal = 09:03, 27 April 2010
 * 2) -- Same exact behavior by new sock, changing subsection headers to push out whitewashing of the topic, see for example at article Scientology controversy, removing subsection header "Attack the Attacker" policy, and replacing it with, Not turning the other cheek = 23:25, 8 May 2010

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by -- Cirt (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

– I would have normally declined per WP:DUCK, but we haven't had an underlying IP check in a while, and we could use one to see if he's changed his range or not. –MuZemike 20:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

✅. He's on a rather large range. --Deskana (talk) 00:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets





 * Addendum after CU check, additional suspected socks

Evidence submitted by Cirt
-- Cirt (talk) 05:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC) Both IPs showed up, at the same article, Volunteer Ministers, shortly after User:Noconcept. Yet further info still, showing a WP:DUCK analysis on likelihood that User:Noconcept = User:DavidYork71. -- Cirt (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * , at Scientology-topic article, Volunteer Ministers, changes subsection header from "Controversy" to "Appraisals".
 * 1) Note exact same behavior pattern by ✅ and blocked socks of User:DavidYork71, on related articles within the same topic. (please see archived history on case page.)
 * Addendum: In response to Shirik below, regarding WP:DUCK, compare:
 * 1) -- changing subsection header "Controversy" to "Appraisals", with
 * 2) User:Ulmgambolputty -- changing subsection header "Controversy" to "Cost recovery", and
 * 3) User:Superfalse -- changing subsection header "'Attack the Attacker' policy" to "Not turning the other cheek".
 * This actually is WP:DUCK, for the account . Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Addition of IPs, additional info connected to User:Noconcept

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

 * and are also probably related. I note that both IPs are registered to an Australian ISP which I understand fits with where DavidYork71 is thought to be located. Adambro (talk) 12:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * also seems to fit DavidYork71's style. Adambro (talk) 12:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by -- Cirt (talk) 05:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Blocked 110.20.51.156/19 AO/ACB under WP:DUCK. I doubt this can be turned into a hard block; the collateral damage on even IP editing is a little high itself. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 16:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Varigate blocked under WP:DUCK of User:Drugring which may be related all the way back here, but no reason to investigate that anymore. (It may come up in a CU check anyway when checking the others, but no need to go out of the way to check it.) -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 17:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Rangeblock on the reported IPs and Varigate blocked under WP:DUCK. Even if they are not DavidYork71, they are clearly evading blocks of others so I had no hesitation in that block. However, the reported sockpuppet Noconcept requires a little more work. I see significant similarities in editing patterns, but I can't take this one under WP:DUCK. Requesting a CU for confirmation. No comment expected regarding the IPs blocked earlier (a hardblock appears even to me to be out of the question; I almost couldn't do a softblock). -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 17:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In light of recent evidence, I've blocked Noconcept under WP:DUCK. The last additional diff is something I was looking for, but missed. I'm placing the CU request on hold while I get some additional information but at this stage it is likely to be cancelled. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 18:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I was going to decline this as a duck case but looking again at the CU queue, and at the IPs I blocked, I guess it can't hurt to make another check to see if a smaller rangeblock can't be placed. The worst we're going to get is a "nope, still the same". -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 05:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Varigate and Noconcept ✅. Actually, while it is certainly a somewhat high-traffic range, if you wanted to block the entire ranges these two sockpuppets have used, you would have to at least expand the block to 110.20.0.0/18 and add 114.72.192.0/18, which was also used. Dominic·t 09:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the CU check and the ✅ result is indeed helpful. I have added three more suspected sock accounts of User:DavidYork71, above, under "Addendum after CU check, additional suspected socks ". Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 11:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Voldair, which also turned up Lets breed. Asdrubal1 is ❌. Dominic·t 07:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Cirt
-- Cirt (talk) 04:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Same location as previous, Australia.
 * 2) Same exact pattern of behavior, see contribs of both the account and the IP.
 * 3) Focus on vandalism in topic, Scientology.
 * 4) Compare with most recent prior archived case investigation.

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by -- Cirt (talk) 04:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

✅ as the same user as Varigate, Noconcept, et.al..

It's very that is also part of that group.

FWIW, I'm not 100% that was necessarily a sock. Possibly, but not necessarily.

Amalthea 15:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  16:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Cirt
Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Identical editing behavior to most recent ✅ cases.
 * 2) Edits to same topic of pages, Scientology area.
 * 3) Edits to same exact article pages, immediately after prior accounts and IPs were blocked as confirmed socks.
 * Requesting checkuser investigation to examine underlying IP edits.
 * This is becoming a frequent problem on similar articles, might need to think about:
 * Semi-protection, and
 * Rangeblocks.

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by -- Cirt (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC) ✅, of course. Covering all ranges typically used would be rather brutal, I'm afraid. Some of them can be done, but semi-protecting his two current favorite articles would cause decidedly less collateral damage. HTH, Amalthea  21:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * User already blocked and rangeblocks appear to be out. Marking as closed. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  22:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Cirt
Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * At article, Scientology controversies, exact same pattern of behavior as ✅ and blocked socks (in SPI archives), namely, POV-pushing by modifying subsection headers.
 * Note: This above diff uses the exact same subsection header titles as have been used in the past by ✅ socks of User:DavidYork71, modifying subsection headers to "Asset Management", etc.

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by -- Cirt (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Technical data matches. Not by itself conclusive, taken together with the mentioned by  I guess it is. Amalthea 23:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  01:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Jayron32
Well, it's been a few months, but you knew he couldn't stay away THAT long, now did you all? User:Ganec displayed the following hallmark DavidYork71 activities: Edits scientology articles:, focus on Project Chanology: , locates to Australia (check article interest on Ganec's contribs list), edits articles related to violence against women in a way in a peculiar way (compare Ganec's edit here: and here:  with those of a confirmed DavidYork71 sock, Comparable2Allah: .  This one has set my Spidey Sense a tinglin.  As usual, he's a prolific sockmaster, so checkuser will be needed to confirm this one (Ganec is currently unblocked, but this evidence is kinda ducky) and to root out the likely thousands of socks which have been created since his last report here. -- Jayron  32  01:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Jayron  32  01:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

 * does indeed appear to be a WP:DUCK sock of User:DavidYork71. Should definitely be blocked. Also, should be checked, for block on underlying IPs and check for other sock activity. -- Cirt (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * - NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 03:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Also the following are DavidYork71 socks (already blocked):


 * . Tiptoety  talk 05:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Bilby
User:Ganec was blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of DavidYork71 by NativeForeigner on the 6th. Subsequently, User:Trizbee appeared, inserting the same content into Violence against Indians in Australia controversy (eg Ganec; Trizbee).

Trizbee went on to edit at Talk:Michael Jackson and The Culture of Critique series, amongst other articles. Later, Trizbee created a pro-facist userbox (since deleted).

A few hours later, User:NordicPowerFascist appeared and edited the same articles to insert some of the same content (eg Violence against Indians in Australia controversy, The Culture of Critique series and Michael Jackson).

I don't know DavidYork71's editing style enough to make a judgement, but it seems strong that NordicPowerFascist = Trizbee, Trizbee = Ganec, and it is believed that Ganec = DavidYork71. - Bilby (talk) 11:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Bilby (talk) 11:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have known DavidYork71's editing style since 2007 and I can say that Bilby's description is spot on. Endorsed. --Merbabu (talk) 11:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
I stumbled on this discussion after reviewing a report at WP:UAA. Anyway, it's ✅ that: , who was previously blocked as a sock of DavidYork71. It's that  is related. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 11:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * are both the same as
 * are both the same as
 * Closing, all three blocked & tagged Amalthea  12:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
✅ that are all the same, and very likely the same as, an account previously blocked as a sock of DavidYork71. Amalthea 18:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * DavidYork71 is banned, the edits from the above accounts may need reverting per WP:BAN. Amalthea  18:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Socks blocked. Edits reverted. -- Cirt (talk) 18:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Cirt
Thank you for your time. -- Cirt (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Starts with edits to topic of Australia.
 * 2) Interest in politics.
 * 3) After about ten total edits, arrives at page, Project Chanology.
 * 4) Posts to talk page of Talk:Project Chanology, requesting article be written in past tense, or article be unprotected.
 * 5) Compare with prior sock activity of banned User:DavidYork71, see but one example,.
 * 6) Compare with socks from this SPI case page's archives, at same article, Project Chanology.

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * I have blocked the account above as blatantly obvious, per WP:DUCK. However, I still recommend that we let the checkuser run its course to look for sleepers.  Anyone who checks the archives of this SPI will turn up literally hundreds of past sleepers routed out by checkusers, so it would be wise for a CU to look for socks or to possibly block underlying IP addresses as needed.  -- Jayron  32  02:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * - Sleepers and IP rangeblock. If parts would cause too much collaterial, I ask that we block some of his smaller more busier ranges. -- DQ  (t)  (e)  11:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ - No sleepers found. Tiptoety  talk 19:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing left to do -- DQ  (t)  (e)  20:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Cirt
-- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:SPA account, other than one edit to Dick Cheney, all edits to topic of Scientology.
 * 2) Early edits focus on Australia area within Scientology, specifically, Aaron Saxton.
 * 3) Username amount of syllables and phrasing is quite similar to others ✅ as banned User:DavidYork71, see SPI case page archives.
 * 4) Account created shortly after prior account was ✅ here at SPI, and indef blocked, see SPI case page archives.

Auto-generated every six hours.
 * User compare report

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * Blocked per WP:DUCK. Checkuser to look for sleepers, proxy IPs, or to enact an underlying range block is still needed.  -- Jayron  32  00:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

based on editing patterns, matching ISPs, and matching user agents with previous socks. –MuZemike 01:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * All blocked up and tagged, not much else to do. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Cirt

 * Rizwanharman, sock of DavidYork71, same behavior as blocked sock Audit2clear
 * 1) Please see most recently blocked sock, at Sockpuppet_investigations/DavidYork71/Archive.
 * 2) Same exact behavior as most recently blocked sock, compare Special:Contributions/Rizwanharman with contribs for.
 * 3) Compare at article Mark Bunker, to  at same article.
 * 4) The sock re-created the previously deleted category, of Category:Reform in Scientology.
 * 5) Please Checkuser to block underlying IP, and any other associated sleeper sock accounts. -- Cirt (talk) 11:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Slungload, sock of DavidYork71, same behavior as blocked sock Audit2clear
 * 1) = same behavior as blocked sock, changes a category that was "critical of ..." Scientology, to be more mild, changing to "about...".
 * 2) No userpage.
 * 3) Account created recently, after sock was blocked,

Auto-generated every six hours.
 * User compare report

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
The two are ✅ as being the same as each other and the same as, who was previously blocked as a sock. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 12:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 12:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Socks have been blocked and tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

21 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

New editors at Australia – New Zealand relations (a known target for DavidYork71) with an understanding of piping links etc. Mattinbgn (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Bush_tax_cuts SatuSuro 01:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
✅ the following are the same:
 * TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 02:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Bsadowski did the blocking, I did the tagging. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 02:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Bsadowski did the blocking, I did the tagging. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 02:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Bsadowski did the blocking, I did the tagging. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 02:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Bsadowski did the blocking, I did the tagging. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Bsadowski did the blocking, I did the tagging. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

21 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Unexplained revert at Australia – New Zealand relations, per other recent sock edits. Already blocked and tagged. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2010 (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
✅, no sleepers. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 17:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Neverkiwi has been blocked. Two of the IPs had been blocked indefinitely, but per WP:IPBLENGTH, I've changed them to be a month. And the other IP is blocked as well, so I think we're done. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

23 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "'' Important exercise to flush out any others - the Australia- New Zealand Good Article status obviously bothers the editor - to be a banned editor and attain a Good Article badge for an article must be something ! SatuSuro 07:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I blocked 124.168.144.122‎ per WP:DUCK - it was obviously the same pattern of edits to the Australia-NZ article as previous socks. Nick-D (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
NeverKiwi is the same as JavaMonkeys. No comment on the IPs. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 14:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * All blocked in some form or another, closing. -- DQ (t)  Merry Chrismasand a Happy New Year!   16:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

1 January 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

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

 * Per a note by Jayron, I've moved the previous case here to Otto4711, and I've marked this for endorse. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll wait for the CU to be run, just for confirmation, but this one is screaming WP:QUACK at us. Project Chanology + Australia/New Zealand = DavidYork71.  -- Jayron  32  22:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ - LOL, also;




 * - A l is o n  ❤ 23:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Everyone's tagged and blocked. We're good for now. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

09 January 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Per the edit made almost as soon as the user was autoconfirmed at Australia – New Zealand relations, a known target for this sockpuppet. This edit shows an unusual level of knowledge for a new editor. Mattinbgn (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2011 (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

 * ✅ - A l is o n  ❤ 07:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked by and tagged. <font color="#C50">Nakon  07:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

04 March 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Thank you for your time. -- Cirt (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Same exact edits, at article Project Chanology, changes "is" to "was", etc., same exact pattern as with multiple previous ✅ and blocked socks in the investigation case page archives, see diff
 * 2) First edits ever of the sock account are blatant vandal edits, see diff and diff
 * 3) Similar pattern to sockmaster, interest in Australia, see third ever edit from sock account, diff
 * 4) Requesting Checkuser technical investigation, in order to block underlying IPs and check for other sleeper accounts and related socks.

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

 * - Endorsing for confirmation and sleepers. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ the following are the same:
 * TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 16:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All socks have been blocked and tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All socks have been blocked and tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks like is also him. It's already been blocked, just noting it here for the record.  Tiptoety  talk 17:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

05 February 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

is already blocked as a sock of Flatulotech. The above editors are making similar changes to the Australia–New Zealand relations as Sayazakardalamdubursaya and began editing straight after he was blocked. The names of the accounts smell ducky too. There is a history of Flatulotech's socks editing this article. AIR corn (talk) 11:47, 5 February 2012 (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
These actually appear to trace back to :
 * As a result, Sockpuppet investigations/FamilyInstituteIntegrityUpholder should probably be pointed at Davidyork71. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  14:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Case moved; everyone blocked and tagged. The autoblock has kicked on for the IP. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As a result, Sockpuppet investigations/FamilyInstituteIntegrityUpholder should probably be pointed at Davidyork71. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  14:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Case moved; everyone blocked and tagged. The autoblock has kicked on for the IP. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As a result, Sockpuppet investigations/FamilyInstituteIntegrityUpholder should probably be pointed at Davidyork71. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  14:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Case moved; everyone blocked and tagged. The autoblock has kicked on for the IP. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As a result, Sockpuppet investigations/FamilyInstituteIntegrityUpholder should probably be pointed at Davidyork71. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  14:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Case moved; everyone blocked and tagged. The autoblock has kicked on for the IP. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As a result, Sockpuppet investigations/FamilyInstituteIntegrityUpholder should probably be pointed at Davidyork71. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  14:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Case moved; everyone blocked and tagged. The autoblock has kicked on for the IP. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Case moved; everyone blocked and tagged. The autoblock has kicked on for the IP. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

15 February 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Similar user name and pattern of incendiary or pedantic edits. . Also under review at WP:UAA. Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2012 (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

 * - It's been ten days, so there's gotta be sleepers. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * - Really nothing of interest, no sleepers, etc. That said, from checking over my notes the account does appear to geolocate to a similar area as DavidYork71. Tiptoety  talk 08:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 'kay, we're good then. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

30 March 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.


 * 1) focuses exclusively on Australia, Nazi Party, and Scientology edits, exact behavior of DavidYork71 socks, with only 4 edits outside of David Miscavige leader of Scientology.
 * 2)  first two edits are minor vandalism on Australian politicians page.
 * 3) paints a pro-Nazi whitewashing in next 2 edits (see banned sock )
 * 4) Third edit changes "dictator" to "statesman" in the Lede, similar behavior to changing "controversial" to "rehabilitation" by banned socks (see )
 * 5) After making 4 edits totaling less than 60 characters, which allows them to achieve auto-confirmed status, SternComradeLoyalFascist moves to Scientology related account and makes three edits, whitewashing entire sections of article.
 * 6) Clearly not a new user, shows knowledge of Wikipedia policy and wiki-markups by referencing and piping both WP:NPOV and WP:BLP in their first talk page edit, despite having only received a warning which made reference to "Neutral point of view" not "WP:NPOV"
 * 7) as soon as they start editing the Scientology page, they mark their edits as "minor" which is similar to other banned socks of DavidYork71, and demonstrates an understanding of what minor edits are by not marking some pages (see    )
 * 8) Whitewashes David Miscavige page in multiple edits, which span across the page in a very similar editing pattern to other Scientology related edits by DavidYork71 socks. (See  )
 * 9)  Edits headings of sections to provide Scientology positive spin similar to other DavidYork71 socks (see
 * 10)  makes argument in edit description that since there is no judicial verdict the statements are false, similar argument of other socks (see  )

I think this could be closed as per WP:DUCK. Coffeepusher (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2012 (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
SternComradeLoyalFascist is a ✅ match to DavidYork71 accounts in the archive. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 18:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Already blocked and tagged, thanks for the diffs. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  06:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

02 April 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

After SternComradeLoyalFascist was banned for  disruptive editing and later tagged as a sock of DavidYork71, User:Hubbarddianetik came and  repeated the same edit as SternComradeLoyalFascist, as well as posting a conversation from Sterns talk page. User:Hubbarddianetik was banned and now User:DianetixWholetrackLifeMastery is repeating the same disruptive edit. I have already requested semi-protection, and would like Dianetix banned as an obvious sock of User:DavidYork71 and would also request a check-user for any sleepers.Coffeepusher (talk) 11:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Coffeepusher (talk) 11:05, 2 April 2012 (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
✅ the following are the same:
 * TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 14:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. T. Canens (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 14:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. T. Canens (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

05 April 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

David Miscavige has been the target of   three different socks of User:DavidYork71 until it was finally semi-protected. Yesterday I manually archived the talk page edits placed there by the socks and now a new sock has since replaced those edits as their first edit. Request checkuser for sleepers. Coffeepusher (talk) 10:49, 5 April 2012 (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
✅, along with. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 19:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

07 April 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I think this can be closed under WP:DUCK Coffeepusher (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Confirmed DavidYork71 sock SternComradeLoyalFascist deleted a large chunk from the Marvelous Marvin Hagler page, as well as editing a POV (see archive for david's style) before being blocked.
 * 2)  Since that time each of these seven IP's have come to the page to delete the restore material. IP114.72.201.19 IP 114.72.202.169 IP 42.241.108.73 IP 114.72.242.97 IP 114.72.236.121 IP 42.241.111.61 (with sock edits added in between)
 * 3) One exception is IP 42.241.32.125 who locates in NSW which is consistent with what we know about David, who didn't restore the edit but expanded David's pov with and edit summary "Marvelous wifebeater", consistent with David's style.
 * 4) Most of these geolocate to Australia, as with most of DavidYork71's ip accounts
 * 5) I have already requested semi-protection of the page.

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

07 April 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

David Miscavige has been the target of   three different socks of User:DavidYork71 until it was finally semi-protected. I manually archived the talk page edits placed there by the socks and confirmed sock PlanetaryClearingMission replaced those edits as their first edit. I cleaned up the page and now IP 120.151.84.228 has undone that edit as their first edit. IP geolocates to Australia and uses Telstra Internet, behavior that is consistent with DavidYork71 (see: Long-term abuse/DavidYork71). Coffeepusher (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2012 (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
Talk:David Miscavige semi-protected for 1 week. At this point, all we can do is semi-protect articles. I will leave the other ones unprotected for the time being, unless his IPs pop up again. --MuZemike 19:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

12 May 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

I blocked yesterday as his behaviour on the Australia–Indonesia relations article is very similar to that of DavidYork71's socks (especially in the Australia–New Zealand relations article), and he was using some relatively advanced editing techniques which few new editors employ so quickly. However, Timothypgraham asserts that he is not a David York sock and is requesting unblock. Could another admin please look into this and/or a Checkuser run a check if this is judged appropriate? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 05:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC) Nick-D (talk) 05:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

added another one that is also relatively similar to DY71 on Manila Accord and who's editing time dove tails in with Timothypgraham edits. FTR I reverted Timothypgraham edits to the Australia–Indonesia relations Gnangarra 07:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

A close inspection of the edit history at Australia-Indonesia relations would in simple Duck test analysis, that it is David York71 or a sock without a doubt - no other user in almost seven years has attempted the same style of editing at this article sats 07:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I have just blocked the account which posted the message below pending the results of this process. I've also left instructions on how to get messages posted here while blocked at User talk:Tim-m-m-m-m. I have to say that the use of multiple accounts in this context is concerning, though may have been in good faith. Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Hi guys - I thought that it might be helpful if I responded here in person. It seems like there's been a bit of a misunderstanding.

I set up this account (timothypgraham) because I was having trouble signing into my first Wikipedia account, which is this one. A year or two ago, I changed the username of the account and deleted most of the user page content on it because I wasn't really editing many articles, and it was appearing quite prominently in search results (I use a similar email address to that).

Of course, when I actually did want to edit that article on Saturday, it meant that I'd concealed it so well that I couldn't find the older account to sign in. I'm sure we've all been there before -- it was only yesterday that I managed to track it down by going to User:Timg231, which redirects to my new account name. With a few guesses on the password, it was possible to sign in.

I'm quite happy to demonstrate for you, one way or another, that I'm also in control of this account (the timothypgraham one). It's a username that I use elsewhere online, including on Facebook and Twitter, so if you'd like to verify that I'm a real person using those, I'm also happy to help out there.

I'd like to apologise for using two different accounts for my edits - I was keen to improve the Australia-Indonesia relations article, and I thought that this older account was lost in the ether. If it's possible to merge the two together, I'd really appreciate it if someone could help me out with that. I can imagine this has caused a fair bit of hassle to you guys.

For my part, though, I've been a little frustrated by this process, because the ban that you guys put in place meant that I couldn't respond to what you were discussing here from that account, or from my home IP address. I recognise the need for admins to be able to do their jobs without unnecessary hurdles, but to me, it feels like a rather harsh (and abrupt) response to what I thought were some quite useful contributions to that article. Does Wikipedia have a means to offer feedback on how these processes work?

I'd be really keen to keep working on Australia-Indonesia relations, and hopefully restore the changes that I made to it on Saturday, if that's permissible. I can't help but feel that if someone had taken the time to read through the edits in question, they might have acted differently, because I feel they definitely improved on what was there before in terms of completeness, and structure. Was it because you suspected I was this other user, or was it because they were deficient one way or another?

If anyone would like to take this up over email, I'm happy to pass on an address to talk about it further. I hope this gives you the information you need to unblock my account so I can continue contributing to WP.

Thanks. tim (talk) 07:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
. Looks fairly suspect to me, but I'd like to see checkuser confirmation before taking any action. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  07:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * for Mwalberts, timing is not enough for a CU check, and no diffs presented.
 * ✅ Timothypgraham & Tim-m-m-m-m. related to the data we have on DavidYork71. --  DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  22:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Tim-m-m-m-m unblocked, other accounts for this user remain blocked. Not a sockpuppet of User:DavidYork71. No action or judgement on Mwalberts at this time. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  08:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

05 April 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Courcellez2 edited the talk page of TheReferenceChecker with the edit summaries of "hey cunts" and "cunts". TheReferenceChecker mentioned his original account was "Courcelles". Also, this user appealed the ban on TheReferenceChecker by using this account. 123chess456 (talk) 06:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Due to the user's re-creation of Auto sodomy (complete with the linking of the page with yoga), the user may be a sockpuppet of User:DavidYork71. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
logs) 07:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * These two, along with many, many more, are the same. I have also come to the conclusion that they are DavidYork71. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I assume this should be merged? --Rschen7754 21:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Merged from Sockpuppet investigations/TheReferenceChecker. Callanecc (talk • contribs •


 * ✅ - the following lot;




 * - A l is o n  ❤ 07:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

28 December 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets






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

A regular attendee at similar attempts to change Australian - New Zealand relations, such as   with the same volume of ks in the edits each time. JarrahTree 11:52, 28 December 2015 (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
This is obviously DavidYork71, and I've blocked the account. Thanks for reporting this JarrahTree. Nick-D (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Puppet blocked. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)