Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EastBelfastBoy/Archive

28 July 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

New accounts used to edit war at Christopher Lynn and possibly create false consensus at Articles for deletion/Christopher Lynn. — Satori Son 16:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

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

The only reason WikiWeeMan is accosiated with me is because he has undone an edit. On his page he says he is neutral view and is 'like judge and jury' and will help wiki because he wants to be an admin. PleasureLandBelfast account was made before me, so they couldn't be me if i was only active last month. EastBelfastBoy (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Not the same person BelfastC (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

NOT MY ACCOUNT, AND IT DOESNT EVEN RELATE TO ME HAHA.... IM A BIT BUSY VANDALISING AND YOU KNOW ALL MY ACCOUNTS NOW SO WHATS THE BPOINT HAHA U-MOS YOU IDIOT — Preceding unsigned comment added by EastBelfastBoy (talk • contribs) 19:50, July 28, 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
✅ the following are the same:
 * TN X Man 18:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * TN X Man 18:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * TN X Man 18:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * TN X Man 18:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

28 July 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Unbelievably, another sock of EastBelfastBoy that has drawn attention to himself on his own sockpuppet investigastion page. Only articlespace edit to date is this, apparently a continuation of EastBelfastBoy's moving of this article from userspace to articlespace. U-Mos (talk) 19:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
DeltaQuad got it. Looks like a pretty clear DUCK case to me. — Satori Son 20:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops, missed this vandalism. Thanks to DQ for cleaning up. — Satori Son 20:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I've indeffed everybody except, which I'm uncertain about. The master got indef for vandalizing and page-move vandalism. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Already confirmed, now blocked, he removed it along with Tnxman's Sig, now restored. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  20:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

31 July 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

WeeC is a new editor whose first action is to recreate article Christopher Lynn originally created by Eastbelfastboy. It is a similar name to other sockpuppets used by Eastbelfastboy. noq (talk) 17:49, 31 July 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

 * Blocked and tagged per WP:DUCK. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

03 August 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

New account making similar edit as recently indef blocked EastBelfastBoy. Checkuser is requested to confirm. Thank you. — Satori Son 19:52, 3 August 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
Gamerguyy is a ✅ match to the previous accounts. TN X Man 20:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

08 October 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

In an older version of his userpage, the sockmaster gives his full name and year of birth. That is consistent with the name of the suspected sockpuppet, who uses the initials and the last to digits of the birth year. On that page EBB also mentions an interest in Connswater although he did not mention that he created the article Connswater Shopping Centre, that later was removed after a regular procedure (Articles for deletion/Connswater Shopping Centre). (And recreated, but I can not see by who) And now Connswater Shopping Centre is recreated again but this time by CDRL98. And to my opinion, CDRL98 confirms here that he is indeed identical to EastBelfastBoy. The Banner talk 22:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

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


 * I have no problem in admitting I am East Belfast Boy from 3 years ago, but please don't block me, I am editing wikipedia for the good. The reason this came up is because I added the page for Connswater, which I feel should be on the wikipedia. Please do not block me over this one incident. Thanks CDRL98 (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * May I also add I have matured since then, I have said on The Banners page about discussing the Connswater page civilly. CDRL98 (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You have to wonder about the motivations of somebody trying to get a user banned for sock puppet activity from over three years ago when they were 13 years old. This editor is just a young man, and a lot of maturity happens over three years. What do you expect to get out of banning him, it's not going to help wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.181.58 (talk) 23:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Block evasion is block evasion. It's not allowed, and it's not the way to go about getting a second chance. Your words are not supported by any sort of policy or precedent. Sergecross73   msg me  00:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Do the community have to follow policy or precedent in every situation? Isn't there somewhere this young man to go, considering he committed his crime when he was a barely a teenager? It's very sad to see people hiding behind protocol in situations like this - i.e. he was banned as a child and now is almost an adult -- is there no room for helping him out? I imagine this is an atypical situation...


 * Providing him with a way back is the policy or precedent. It's pretty common actually.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Consider that the admission above is also an admission to using the other 5-6 accounts listed in the archives of this SPI. The last interaction between the community and the primary account involved obviously fictitious claims that the editor had gone on holidays and that friends had started multiple accounts in his name and had used his unique style of writing and vocabulary to be disruptive. I'd certainly be glad if the editor had moved beyond that. We have provisions for allowing a fresh start but simply returning 3 years later, creating the same article and hoping nobody would notice is not the right way to do it. If we're going to dismiss the creation of a new account as a "fresh start" then we'll probably need a list of any accounts you've used in the interim. The IP seems to think he is helping by making personal attacks against the nominator of the AFD in question. He isn't. But he geolocates to London so at least we don't have to add him to this SPI. IP - give it a rest; you're not helping CDRL.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok thats interesting -- I'm going to unplug my router now as this is obviously marked. Interesting my IP geolocates to London though, I'm in a completely different country, so the geolocating isn't even accurate; I'm in Wales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.181.58 (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Probably just your ISP then. Not "marked", just subject to geolocate (the tools for which are at the bottom of each IPs contribution history).  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 01:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * CDRL98: There is a legitimate way for you to return to editing, called the standard offer. Wait six months without sockpuppetry and request unblocking then. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 02:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)