Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Despatche/Archive

05 February 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

This is a case of "editing logged out to mislead". Some 15 months ago a 1-week block was issued to User:Despatche for disruptive editing (this was his second block and it followed the normal practice of block-escalation). Some examples of his incivility, edit warring, and outspoken refusals to follow community policies like WP:UCN are documented here. Rather than waiting-out his block, Despatche instead chose to put up a retirement notice and to evade the block, carrying on his disruption with another account (User:75.177.117.137). That act of sockpuppetry went undiscovered and it is old news now, but it shows the mindset of the individual here. Wikipedia's rules are only suggestions for him.

Currently Despatche edits under the name User:75.177.119.25. This appears to be a stable IP address (in use since March 2014) that serves as this editor's primary alternate account. In May 2014, noticed that there were similarities between the behavior of User:Despatche and User:75.177.119.25. User:75.177.119.25 was advised to edit while logged in, but his response was to claim that he was not Despatche and that he viewed such suggestions as harassment (links provided in evidence below). This is of course a direct violation of Sock puppetry - "Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors, such as by directly saying that they do not have an account".

Like Atlan I balked at filing this report in March and instead advised the editor (under the theory that he was attempting a WP:CLEANSTART) to avoid the same kinds of edits in the same topic areas where he had been causing problems before. He has chosen not to stop this behavior and has for the past year been systematically going through obscure articles altering them to fit his original research. His denial of the fact that he is the same as User:Despatche leads me to believe that he is trying to evade the community's scrutiny (he has a reputation in the community for aggressive edit warring over "official titles"), and that his use of the current IP account is a means to dodge possible escalating blocks associated with his named account.

With this report I am seeking a block of the main IP account (75.177.119.25) with the hope that this will encourage the editor to resume using his currently non-blocked named account. Alternately if the editor in question wishes to make a clean start then I would again urge him to re-read WP:CLEANSTART and to avoid the topic areas where he has been editing and engaging in the disapproved activity he has been engaging in (i.e. trying to impose his original-research-based ideas of which official titles trump WP:UCN).

- Thibbs (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Evidence:
 * Despatche is the same as the various IPs - The IRC logs (previously available here Link removed as it doesn't link to the intended website. showed that User:75.177.117.137 identified himself as Despatche on Nov 23, 2013 at 19:23 when he posted "i can't do this anymore, ..." Further evidence comes via WP:SIGNS:
 * Geography - This IP editor geolocates to Thomasville, NC. All of the IPs geolocate to the Davidson County, NC area.
 * Repeating the same disapproved activity - Despatche's principal concern at Wikipedia is video game article naming. He gets into editing conflicts when he believes that the official name (for which his typical source is his private interpretation of the box art) is at odds with the common name. All of his IP accounts demonstrate this preoccupation with an original-research-based "official name". (diffs: Compare Despatche title-related edits like and  with the identical title-related edit by 75.177.119.25 like  and  which led editors in this thread to recognize 75.177.119.25 as Despatche. Compare further with identical edits of 75.177.117.137, 174.111.75.6 , 174.111.86.22 , 174.111.81.238 , and 174.111.82.239 )
 * Editing identical articles - Dariusburst (diffs:, , , ); Arthur to Astaroth no Nazomakaimura: Incredible Toons (diffs: , , ); Metroid: Zero Mission (diffs: , , ). There is also considerable overlap in edits at "Ghosts 'n Goblins" and "Ghosts 'n Goblins (series)" (edited by 174.111.81.238, 174.111.86.22, and Despatche).
 * Off-wiki activity - Despatche's Twitter feed closely matches the events in the editing history of User:75.177.119.25. Similar behavior and identical topic areas are apparent at other wikis where this editor has edited including MetroidWiki (compare comments about Wikipedia here to Despatche's favorite topic areas listed immediately above in this SPI at "Editing identical articles"), StrategyWiki (note typical edits like this and Despatche-style conflicts over article naming like this), MarioWiki, and KHWiki (compare comments about Wikipedia here to Despatche's comments at the related Wikipedia article). (NOTE: Twitter evidence available by email on request. -Thibbs (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC))
 * Sockpuppetry during the Nov 24-Dec 1 block - diffs:, ,
 * Denials that he is User:Despatche - diffs:,, , ,
 * Warnings that editing while logged out to evade scrutiny will result in an SPI filing and recommendations to follow WP:CLEANSTART - diffs:, 2, ,

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Re: Checkuser comments:
 * Just because someone once had an account doesn't mean they can no longer stop using that account or that they are forbidden from editing as an IP. - I think I understand what you mean, but this isn't just a matter of a neutral editor who forgot to log back in or who is trying to effect a clean start. The supposed master has been blocked several times for edit warring and refusing to follow the article title policy, WP:UCN. These blocks have been escalated in the past due to "I didn't hear that" behavior. The use of IPs following the claimed retirement of the supposed master means that the escalation of blocks is unlikely unless the supposed IP sock admits that he is the same as the supposed master. The diffs previously provided show that the supposed IP sock actively denies that he is the same as the supposed master. I regard this as "actively try[ing] to deceive other editors, such as by directly saying that [he does] not have an account" (an activity that is spelled out under Wikipedia's sock puppetry policy).
 * We don't care who is editing non-WMF sites and I do not understand why that information is being provided here - Off-wiki information is presented as evidence per WP:OTHERSITES. I could connect more of the dots if necessary, but I'm not sure if it would be considered outing to link the Twitter account. Please advise. (NOTE: I've just been advised that public links to the Twitter account would constitute outing but I am willing to send such evidence by private email if it is requested. -Thibbs (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC))
 * I will provide further diffs to show "repeating the same disapproved activity" as soon as I can. ( ✅ -Thibbs (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC) ) Thank you for preemptively considering a CheckUser check. -Thibbs (talk) 02:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Haven't had the opportunity to analyze the evidence "in-depth", but I remember vividly interacting with the account, and from the diffs Thibbs linked to as "denials", I get a very strong gut feeling that we are dealing with the same editor. ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  16:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Checkuser comments: The supposed master is with last edits in November 2013. Most of the IPs listed above are related to the IP that was previously linked to the the supposed master. We don't care who is editing non-WMF sites and I do not understand why that information is being provided here. And no, just because someone once had an account doesn't mean they can no longer stop using that account or that they are forbidden from editing as an IP.  So...maybe start all over again, keep out the extraneous data, and explain clearly why all those IP addresses should be associated with the master account - something that is normally not done by checkusers. Perhaps list any suspected sock named accounts in the upper section.  In the interim, I am declining.  Risker (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Noting that there is now additional information; reopening for further review, although it will probably have to be a behavioural review given the supposed master account being stale. Risker (talk) 05:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the provided evidence. I think what's presented is suitable enough and I won't need to see the other material you've mentioned. I've blocked the most recent IP and the account for a month for attempting to evade scrutiny. The other IPs are much too stale to take any action. Mike V • Talk 23:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)