Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Enidblyton11/Archive

16 April 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 " ~ "''

Enidblyton11 was indefinitely blocked in early March for adding an assassination hoax to Tony Windsor and it is clear that 144.136.101.108 is the same editor. Both added similar vandalism to Tony Windsor on or around the fourth of March, and 144.136.101.108 admitted the connection here on Windale,_New_South_Wales. Jarrodaus11 has the same pro-Liberal Party stance, has edited a number of similar articles as Enidblyton11 (see wikistalk results), and has been supported by 144.136.101.108 in disputes at Australian Greens and Talk:Sophie_Mirabella. I also have a sneaking suspicion that WikiCorrector2 may be related to Enidblyton11, but I have little to back this up. This is pretty much the extent of my evidence.

Orderinchaos, who has been keeping track of this SPI since he first filed it last year, believes there may be a relationship to the Stravin sockfarm. He believes Enidblyton = KAPITALIST88, that 58.106.81.131 is related to Enidblyton11, and that Jarrodaus11 = Stravin. He's also suggested that Романов (a reformed editor related to the Stravin and Wikistar/GJGardner editors from previous reports in this SPI, see his admission) might be related. Please see User talk:Orderinchaos for a more detailed account of his reasoning.

If possible, I'd like to see if a checkuser can determine:
 * Whether Jarrodaus11 = Enidblyton11
 * Whether Enidblyton11 = KAPITALIST88
 * Whether Enidblyton11/Jarrodaus11/KAPITALIST88 is related to Stravin or Романов
 * Whether there are any sleepers.

Thanks. -- Lear's Fool 06:18, 16 April 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

 * - I'm endorsing to check the users against each other; checking against the master isn't an option, as all the data for it and its socks is stale. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ that and  are the same. The other named accounts are  matches - same geographic area, different ISPs and computers.  TN X Man  13:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've blocked Jarrodaus11. Given that there's no definite link to Stravin, can I suggest that a Clerk move this report to Sockpuppet investigations/Enidblyton11? -- Lear's Fool 03:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So done. (The stupid way.) —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

11 May 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 " ~ "''

I think behavioural evidence is nearly sufficent for here, but I'd like Checkuser evidence to be sure, and check for any sleepers. Behavioural similarities between, and  include:
 * Usernames with an actual name and then two numbers
 * A pro-Liberal bias
 * Continuation of disputes on Sophie Mirabella and Lee Rhiannon
 * Continuation of conflict with and myself
 * A propensity to list articles he has contributed to in any defence of their conduct
 * Spells Timeshift with camelcase ("TimeShift")

The user has already been blocked for disruptive editing. -- Lear's Fool 11:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

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

When I blocked this editor I thought that their behavior looked awfully familiar but couldn't remember the name of the other accounts. I definitely agree that this is the sme editor based on their contributions, though CU confirmation would be helpful (especially as there may be further socks). Nick-D (talk) 11:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hilarity. Timeshift (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Admission by Enidblyton11 that they created Timbracks13. Bidgee (talk) 12:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Endorsing to clarify what's going on here. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 12:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No sleepers. TN X Man  12:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. -- Lear's Fool 12:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

26 May 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 " ~ "''

I've just blocked as another sockpuppet of  based on their contributions - the similarities with the most recent confirmed sock  are pretty obvious (adding negative material about members of the Australian Greens, focusing heavily on the The Bolt Report  article and disputing the prod deletion of the very obscure Rainbow Liberals article which Timbracks13 created, for instance). Could a check please be done to see if there are any further sleeper socks? Thanks. Nick-D (talk) 01:18, 26 May 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

 * I'm adding a checkuser endorsement per Nick's request. (In the future, be sure to change checkuser=yes in the report so we know that there's a CU request.) —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Appears to have been confirmed by User:Jpgordon. -- Lear's Fool 04:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Per the above link, it's confirmed. User talk access has been revoked. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  11:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

17 June 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Obviously not a new editor. Has a similar editing style to Enidblyton11, particularly the flurry of edits immediately after account creation, the early morning (Australian time) activity, and the focus on Australian Politics. This effort to add the phrase "left-wing" to the infobox of the Australian Greens is a continuation of the same dispute he previously pursued as Enidblyton11 here  -- Lear's Fool 19:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a further note that after the most recent unblock request at User talk:Enidblyton11, his talkpage access has been removed on all accounts to prevent vexatious unblock requests. -- Lear's Fool 19:53, 17 June 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
On the basis of this account's contributions and editing style, it is obvious that this is once again. I've blocked the account but left them with the ability to edit their talk page so that another admin can review this decision when the inevitable unblock request is lodged. I'm not sure if a CU is needed here as the contributions evidence is pretty strong. Nick-D (talk) 23:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * - Declining, as CU isn't needed here to confirm, behavioural evidence is enough here. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  12:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sock is already blocked. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

08 September 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I'm not totally sure about a link between Welshboyau11 and EnidBlyton11, so I'd appreciate input from less involved editors. Obviously the old accounts are stale, so all I have is behavioural evidence. For anyone not keen on wading through the sock-puppet investigation archive, I put together a summary of Enid's disruption here. -- Lear's Fool 15:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, both have edited from Telsta IP addresses in the Sydney area.
 * There are username similarities with some Enidblyton11 accounts (compare Enidblyton11, Jarrodaus11, Timbracks13)
 * I can't help but notice similarities between Welshboy's unblock request here and requests made at User talk:Timbracks13. He tends to claim to be a new user and list all the articles where he's done some positive work.
 * Finally, there is the same rapid progression from starting to edit to a fully-fledged dispute on an Australian Politics page and a dispute with User:Timeshift9.
 * I should also note that both User:Timbracks13 and Welshboyau11 have tried to get Timeshift9's userpage deleted as an attack page. -- Lear's Fool 16:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Welshboyau11 is currently partway through a day's block and unable to respond here. --Pete (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * They are the same usesr, same area of disputes, same methods of attack, June 2011 exactly the same argument over the exact same issue with the exact same article on the Australian Greens. Gnangarra 20:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I've just blocked per WP:DUCK, and posted a more detailed rationale on their talk page. Based on my experience with chasing Enidblyton11's previous socks, this is clearly the same person. Nick-D (talk) 23:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Admin took care of it. Closing. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 00:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)