Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Derbyboy2890/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The sockpuppet's account was registered two weeks after the sockmaster was indefed and is following the same modus operandi as the master, i.e. reinterpreting what the sources say, such as here and here. M.Bitton (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2020 (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 case is being reviewed by JJMC89 as part of the clerk training process. Please allow him to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on his talk page or on this page if more appropriate.'''
 * Seems likely based on the diffs presented —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 00:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * . ST47 (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 00:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The sockpuppet's account (Aplce) was created within 40 minutes of the sockmater's sitewide block and is now targeting the same article with the same POV:

Uk5056547 Aplce

Uk5056547 Aplce

Uk5056547 Aplce

Uk5056547 Aplce

Both of them use the expression " I improved the page " in their edit summaries (Uk5056547 and Aplce). M.Bitton (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2020 (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

 * - Mz7 (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Aplce and Uk5056547 are ✅ to each other and to, and these three accounts are to Sockpuppet investigations/Derbyboy2890. Note the similar behavior of Derbyboy2890 . .  Please merge this case into Derbyboy2890. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Case merged from Uk5056547 to Derbyboy2890 —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 07:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Both accounts were created today, 24 hours after the block of the latest sockpuppets (Aplce and Uk5056547), to target (using the same POV) the same articles that were previously targeted by the sockmaster. There's even a pathetic attempt at supporting each other's edits. M.Bitton (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging the CU (U|Mz7) who's familiar with the sock master. M.Bitton (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Both accounts were created in the last 48 hours (10 days after the last sock was blocked) and are targeting the same articles with the same POV:

Cp3R2A GHy5670

Cp3R2A GHy5670

The link between the two is fairly obvious and both are simply restoring the sockmaster's edits. M.Bitton (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅., closing. Mz7 (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Same edit here to Battle of Camarón as previous sockpuppet, here, same edit here to French expedition to Korea as made by previous sockpuppet Uk5056547 here, and similar edit to List of wars involving the United Kingdom as previous sockpuppet here. FDW777 (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

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

It looks like a duck to me Here's another example of them restoring the exact edit of Mr_man4733 (another sock of theirs). M.Bitton (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Thank you for the detailed and succinct diffs; that made this easy., closing.  I'm thinking we should stop playing whack-a-mole and start getting aggressive about semi-protecting articles. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

New account, adding unsourced or SYNTH content to multiple articles that were of similar interest to User:Huh3456, a now-blocked sock of User:Derbyboy2890, just a few days ago. Diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4. I'd block myself, but not sure of the right procedures for logging the sock account properly. Girth Summit  (blether) 10:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

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


 * Agree, had spotted this and arrived at the same conclusion separately. Very clearly the same user. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Given they admit to sockpuppetry, I doubt anyone would object to blocking them to prevent continued disruption, and we can dot the Is and cross the Ts after. FDW777 (talk) 11:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed - given that they openly admitted to using multiple accounts to evade their block, I've gone ahead and blocked them as a sock puppet. Perhaps someone more familiar than me with the relevant paperwork would like to file this properly? Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  11:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Tagged as proven due to self admission and strong evidence. Closing. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 11:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Making the same edit here as previous sock did here with the exact same summary of Stalemates shouldn't count as defeats. Also making the same addition of 1830 French invasion of Algiers here that was added as Invasion of Algiers in 1830 by previous sockpuppet here. Usual attempt to put a British spin on the result of a war here, as seen in similar edits to other articles here, here and here. FDW777 (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2020 (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

 * by Ohnoitsjamie —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 07:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed tag. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Sino-French War sees an attempt to change the result to a French victory, like a previous sockpuppet. Use of "Cp" and "gh" in the username is reminiscent of previous sockpuppets and  detailed at Sockpuppet investigations/Derbyboy2890/Archive. FDW777 (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * While that might be true for Uk5056547, various other sockpuppets do have occasional edits at fr, and the sockmaster Derbyboy2890 has edits at fr, sv, and es. So if anything, that's more evidence not less in my book at least. FDW777 (talk) 07:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Also they are quite shamelessly changing the infobox at English Americans to 50 million here, a change previously made by known sockpuppets Gjxybcg and Huh3456. FDW777 (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2020 (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

 * - Endorsing, but with reservations. The similarity of this edit vs this edit is hard to ignore.  But, Cp345gh was created on another wiki (frwiki, if I'm reading the logs right), and has edits all over the place (fr, en, es, ast, it, zh, ru).   Uk5056547 was created here on enwiki and has no other global activity.  So, that's a significant difference which gives me doubts. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Given 's additional evidence, there's really no need to bother with CU., closing. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

So far they have edited three articles. Quite remarkable that all of them were previously edited by known sockpuppets, including making the same edit as two different sockpuppets. FDW777 (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * At they make this change previously made by known sockpuppet Huh3456 here
 * has previously been edited by different sockpuppet Cp345gh
 * At they make this change removing "(12,000)" and "(887)" and changing "TF de Monsabert" to "1st Army (France)", which was previously made by known sockpuppet Cp345gh here

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

 * Blocked by . Nothing further to do. Closing. Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 23:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The day after the IPs three month checkuser block expired they make this edit to List of wars involving the United Kingdom, which just happens to be the same edit made here by another Derbyboy2890 sockpuppet. FDW777 (talk) 11:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * is there any possibility of you reblocking this IP please? FDW777 (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2021 (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

 * Reblocked for another 6 months. I'll see you all back here in July. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The account seems to have learned from previous sockpuppets' mistakes and isn't making identical edits to the same articles, but the overall similarity in edits is quite striking. They edit almost (more on that at the end) exclusively in two areas - battles, typically the results of them, and ethnic groups, specifically the numbers in infoboxes. You see the exact same topic areas in edits by sockpuppets such as Special:Contributions/Gjxybcg and Special:Contributions/Cp345gh. See for example the edits as English Americans by Cp345gh, Gjxybcg and by current sockpuppet Johnny123466.

The IP listed at Sockpuppet investigations/Derbyboy2890/Archive made this edit with the following edit summary Compare to this edit by Johnny123466 with the following edit summary While obviously not word for word the same you see the same themes - changing the result of a battle while referring to an edit made on a specific date using ordinals, and also that no "reason" was provided.
 * On the 23rd July 2020 the result of the Irish war of independence was change from a ceasefire to an Irish Republican victory without any reason given I am simply changing this void edit back to its original version
 * The edit which states an Ottoman victory was only made recently on the 28th October 2020 the user provided no reason or sources for the edit. It is not a valid edit and I simply have just reverted it

The only edits outside of the battle/ethnic groups area are these two consecutive edits to English footballer Craig Forsyth. Forsyth just happens to have played for Derby County for over seven seasons, which considering Derbyboy2890's name and geolocation of known IP locates to (depending on tool used, this one and this one say Derby) is highly suggestive when combined with behavioural evidence. FDW777 (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Further evidence, apologies as there are that many articles and that many sockpuppets I didn't have time for a thorough investigation.


 * Cp345gh at List of wars involving Finland "I believe that the winter war shouldn’t count as a defeat and should be classed as inconclusive"
 * Johnny123466 at the same article " Removing Heimosodat as it was Finnish volunteers not the actual Finnish army also put the Winter war as inconclusive"
 * FDW777 (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Since this report they have made this edit at List of wars involving France (one of their frequent targets), changing the result of the "French and Iroquois Wars", a change made a month ago by their known IP sockpuppet here. FDW777 (talk) 08:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Thank you for the quick response, but what about the behavioural evidence? For instance: they first started by removing the sources from the Algerian War article, just like their sockmaster did, and when that didn't work, they changed the corresponding result colour in the List of wars involving France article, just like they tried to do countless times before. M.Bitton (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi M.Bitton! I'm only supplying technical evidence as a checkuser. I do not use behavioral evidence to base my findings when I am wearing my "checkuser hat". I've only looked into your findings enough to base that using the checkuser tools is appropriate per policy. I'm happy to look deeper at the behavioral evidence, but with my tenure as a CU, I've been trying to stick only to technical evidence for now. I want to gain experience as a CU and learn, grow, and make sure that I'm proficient before I start to wear more than one hat in an SPI. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   22:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that CU and behaviour were looked at separately, my bad, and thank you for offering to look deeper at the behavioural evidence. Incidentally, FDW777 is responsible for most of the findings and the report, I only came here to add more evidence when the SP hit my watchlist. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * M.Bitton - No worries; this is at least what I do as a checkuser. I'm a new checkuser, too... I think that once time goes by and as I gain more proficiency with the tool, I'll be able to put on both hats. For now, I'd rather be on the cautious side and make sure that I'm doing the right thing. I definitely don't want to be making mistakes and doing the wrong things with functionary-level user tools. ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Perfectly understandable. Hopefully, further evidence might help: In the English Americans article, both the SP and the previous socks used (English ancestry) while adding the numbers.


 * Johnny123466 Diff
 * Huh3456 Diff
 * Cp345gh Diff


 * Which seems too much of a coincidence. Also, new editors do not hit the ground running like they did. M.Bitton (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * . All of the accounts I can compare to are, and have no logs except for the master. All I can give is that they're in the same country, different ranges.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   21:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked on behavioral grounds. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , one of the IP addresses also had Bigblob67896 and another sock on it. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like there's nothing left to do, closing. Blablubbs | talk 12:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

see contributions Ahmetlii (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' I think this is more likely to be to be honest due to a particular behavioural trait I'd prefer not to mention publicly, their SPI page is at Sockpuppet investigations/Cypriot Chauvinist. FDW777 (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Closing without action because the IP hasn't edited in more than a week so is now stale. Mz7 (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Created shortly after the previous sockpuppet was blocked, and after a brief period editing in a slightly wider area of articles, has settled straight back into editing almost exclusively articles about battles especially French ones, just like all previous sockpuppets.

Specifically this edit by Johnny123466 at List of wars involving France, just happens to have been redone by ComputerNerd6788 with this edit. Also there this edit and this edit by Johnny123466 at Hungarian–Czechoslovak War changing the result to a "Czechoslovak Victory", arguing in their edit summary "This war was a Czechoslovak victory as Hungary was forced to retreat from Czechoslovak territory". ComputerNerd6788 also changes it to a Czechoslovak victory with this edit, also arguing in the edit summary "How is this war a Hungarian victory? They invaded Czechoslovak then retreated". FDW777 (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2021 (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

 * ✅ to Johnny123466., closing. Mz7 (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Usual types of articles edited, ethnic groups/demographics (Demographics of Uruguay and (Ethnic groups of Argentina), expansion of articles tagged for expansion using the foreign-language versions (see for example this and this for Wowlebureh, plenty of similar edits by ComputerNerd6788 such as this and this). More obviously, there's the usual obsession with attempting to change the results of battles. For example at Austro-Turkish War (1663–64) previous sockpuppet Johnny123466 changed the result to "Austria and allies military victory", just like Wowlebureh does here. At Algerian War Derbyboy2890 changed the infobox results from "Military stalemate" to "French Military victory". Wowlebureh can't currently edit the article as it's semi-protected, but they are making the same argument on the article's talk page. FDW777 (talk) 11:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

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

just tried to blank this SPI, with no edit summary. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This, thanks. Blocked for 2 weeks pending the SPI/CU result. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the confirmation and the block; I've reverted the remaining contributions and collapsed the discussions with the sockpuppet. The case is still marked as "CUrequest", can't close ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Thanks, . CU-confirmed with and others. Drmies (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * , closing. Blablubbs | talk 19:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Not many edits to work off, but the edits at English Americans are mighty suspicious. First of all see my removal of a previous sockpuppet's addition (I'm linking to the removal not the addition for now, as the formatting of the addition was improved by another editor in the interim). This was largely reverted by Poggg133's first edit to the article, although they only added back the garbage Youtube reference not the books. Now we'll look at Johnny123466's original addition. The book they cited as formatted as The English Diaspora in North America: Migration, Ethnicity and Association, 1730s–1950s by Tanja Bueltmann and Donald M. MacRaild No italics, ISBN, publisher or page number. Poggg133's second attempt to add the information is here, with the book cited formatted as Locating the English Diaspora, 1500-2010, by Tanja Bueltmann, ‎David T. Gleeson and Donald M. MacRaild. Obviously not the same book (but a similar theme, and two of the same authors), but formatted just as badly and lacking all the same necessary information. I point out the "Book preview contains no obvious verification of this either, so requires full information including quote from the book to be provided if this is to be added". Over a series of edits the information is added back with a claimed quote from the book, see Talk:English Americans for a dissection of whether that quote is properly cited. The claimed three pages (for a fifty-nine word quote!) are ones that aren't part of the Google Books preview (convenient!), but after checking on Amazon's "Look inside" feature there are certain key words from the quote that don't appear on the claimed pages at all, despite searches for a more generic term returning hits for the same pages. I have received no adequate explanation for this discrepancy yet, except for "I’m not deliberately being disruptive". FDW777 (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2021 (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

 * Also found and ✅:
 * Bagging and tagging sock accounts. This SPI can be closed...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Bagging and tagging sock accounts. This SPI can be closed...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Bagging and tagging sock accounts. This SPI can be closed...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Bagging and tagging sock accounts. This SPI can be closed...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Bagging and tagging sock accounts. This SPI can be closed...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Bagging and tagging sock accounts. This SPI can be closed...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Largely the same edits as previous sockpuppet at Second French intervention in Mexico. For example here Johnny123466 removed "defeated" from the end of a sentence, just like Rombon123 does here. Similarly Johnny123466 here removes a particular unreferenced sentence, here Rombon123 removes it, and replaces it with a completrly different unreferenced sentence. Checkuser requested for sleepers, since Sockpuppet investigations/Derbyboy2890/Archive shows they have multiple sockpuppets active at the same time, probably to avoid editing patterns across multiple articles being detected. FDW777 (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2021 (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

 * ✅. Bagging and tagging sock account. This SPI can be closed...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   17:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

A "new" editor targetting the usual article with the usual same edit compare theirs to one of their previous socks). M.Bitton (talk) 19:43, 10 May 2021 (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

 * ✅. Bagging and tagging sock account. This SPI can be closed...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   19:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

At amends the result to "Strategic British victory" or "British victory", a change a previous sockpuppet had repeatedly agitated for at Talk:Battle of Lundy's Lane and Talk:Battle of Lundy's Lane, as well as trying to change it to "Strategic British victoy" five times. Derbyboy2890's known IP made this edit changing the result of the Irish War of Independence (in a related article, not the main article about the war) from "Irish Republic victory" to "Ceasefire", something Rebelrajan did on the main article. There's also attempts to change the result at by Uk5056547 and Rebelrajan FDW777 (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2021 (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

 * - TheresNoTime 😺 22:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * and (found) are ✅ to .  - TheresNoTime 😺 22:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Closing. GABgab 14:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

IP geolocates to Derby, like previous sockpuppets. At the IP removes the "Ottoman victory" result here just like a previous sockpuppet did here. Similarly at the IP adds "Supported by:" to the infobox  here just like a previous sockpuppet did here. Same again at with the IP adds "Supported by" to the infobox here just like a previous sockpuppet did here. FDW777 (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Further to this evidence, I failed to notice the edits to where the IP changes the result from "Victory for the League of Venice" to "French withdrawal"] here, just like previous sockpuppet Bigblob67896 did here when they changed it from "Victory for the League of Venice" to "French withdrawal from Italy". That was that sockpuppet's only edit, so it's truly remarkable that the IP has managed to make the same edits as Johnny123466, Huh3456, and Bigblob67896 - three different Derbyboy2890 sockpuppets! FDW777 (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

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

This as has surprised me and I would like a fair hearing unlike what FDW777 is doing as he/she/they have already branded me a sockpuppet and reverted all my edits before the case has closed. I rarely edit on Wikipedia unlike these banned accounts you are accusing me of being. I am I not allowed to edit on certain articles because some banned accounts once did? My IP geolocates to Derby ok? There are 100,000s of people here not just one person per city can edit Wikipedia, this site has nearly 30 million editors worldwide, I don't see how that makes me a sockpuppet. Is my IP the same as the sockpuppet accounts? I have never even interacted with FDW777 so I don't understand the attack on me like this. I'm annoyed he/she/they have reverted me edits and already branded me a sockpuppet before the case has closed, which is surely against the rules? That is all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.102.200.93 (talk) 12:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

In response to FDW777:

"I am I not allowed to edit on certain articles because some banned accounts once did?" Also you haven't addressed yourself reverting my edits and branding me a sockpuppet before the case is closed, which surely defeats the entire point of sockpuppet investigations, if you, just one user revert all my edits before the case is even closed. Also "French withdrawal from Italy" is obviously not the same edit as just "French withdrawal". Is no one allowed to change that result box ever again because a banned account edited it. Is my IP address the same as the banned accounts IP address? If it's not then this investigation has no real proof of me being a sockpuppet. That is all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.102.200.93 (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * They are saying that the IP Geolocation, and similar edits, are the reason. While there are a lot of users, the chances of there being very similar edits from the same geolocation isnt that common, this is a “fair hearing” as, this is the normal way SPIs go from what I can tell, and, reverting the edits while the case is open is common.  LakesideMiners Come Talk To Me! 14:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well thanks for clearing that up for me. However it still doesn't sit right with me that FDW777 can brand me as a sockpuppet before the case has closed. That to me is unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.102.200.93 (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I find the evidence quite factual. Exact same edits, same POV pushing, seriously..--Kansas Bear (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Response to Kansas bear:Well you would obviously say that considering we got into an editing dispute, so it's convenient for you if I get banned, so you can push your own POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.102.200.93 (talk) 09:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
'''This case is being reviewed by Tamzin as part of their training as a clerk. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference. You may pose any questions or concerns either on their talk page or on this page.'''
 * FDW's diffs are all very compelling. It's hard to think of any way that anyone could independently decide to make such particular edits, let alone someone from the same city. For some bonus writing-style analysis, let's just say... Don't call me Shirley. : They've been on this IP for a month, so . Thanks. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 10:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * . Closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * 1) The IP uses the same ISP and is from the same geolocation as the previous one (that ended up being blocked three times). 2) They are following the same modus operandi as the other socks (obsession with wars/battles' results that are mostly related to France). 3) Interestingly, they tried to change the result of the Irish War of Independence, just like the master did previously, using a sockpuppet as well as one of their usual IPs.


 * While I can't be 100% sure about "FR1914", I can see that they have a lot in common with the master: 1) the same interest in Infoboxes and wars' results that are mostly related to France. 2) repeatedly targetting the List of wars involving France (one of the master's favourite articles). 3) the same ISP as the above IP (I know this because they exposed one of their IPs while redacting a personal attack. Compare the IP's edit to theirs). Although the IP appears to be from a different city (than the usual "Derby"), I can't rule out the possibility of the same person moving between the two. 4) both FR1914 and the IP have a habit of forgetting to indent and sign their comments (as well as comment after a template). See these discussion with FR1914 and the above IP. 5) both have pushed the same POV about the result of Bombardment of Algiers (1688) (FR1914 went as far as to rename a related article and misrepresent the sources in order to change it). 6) just like the master and their other socks, "FR1914" has edited the French Wikipedia too.

Pinging (as per this request). M.Bitton (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for looking into this. Unfortunately, I can't think of a specific edit that links "FR1914" to the previous socks. If what I presented above is not enough to warrant a CU, I would completely understand. M.Bitton (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2022 (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 case is being reviewed by MarioGom as part of the clerk training process. Please allow him to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on his talk page or on this page if more appropriate. '''
 * -, thank you for the report. The case for the IP is clear. I'm still going through FR1914's contributions. If you can point me to a few diffs comparing FR1914 behavior to older socks (for each example, at least one diff from FR1914 and one from an older sock or IP), it will help to expedite the process. MarioGom (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * - The IP looks like a duck. Please, soft-block it for, at least, 2 weeks. Meanwhile, I'm going to ask for a second opinion about FR1914 before proceeding with it. MarioGom (talk) 08:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comparing to some historical notes we have in cuwiki, FR1914 is ; given the age of the cuwiki data, It's not possible to get any more specific than that. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I think it's better to leave FR1914 alone then. The IP is still good to block. MarioGom (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * IP blocked for a period of 1 month. DatGuyTalkContribs 13:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)