Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Factocop/Archive

Evidence submitted by O Fenian
This has previously been dealt with at Sockpuppet investigations/The Maiden City, but since there are two sockmasters at work it seems sensible to create a dedicated one for Factocop. Factocop initially edited as several IPs,, and  before creating an account and carrying on the same edit wars on the same articles. Since the indefinite block of Factocop and several of his sockpuppets, 147.114.44.201 is now carrying on the same disputes here and here. Here Factocop says "NC, I think your alias O Fenian will confirm my IP address given that he had me blocked while I was operating under an IP and before I had set up an account". That is where he denies this accusation - "Factocop, please stop the pretense that IP 87.113.26.186 is anyone other than yourself, it really is growing old". So he denies that he has an 87 prefixed IP, and admits I know what his IP is as I had it blocked. There is the block. Due to him using several IPs on a fast-rotating basis I never made any AIV reports, but I made several page protection requests. O Fenian (talk) 10:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Now moved onto another IP, would suggest any preventative block covers all three IPs listed in the evidence above, have not listed the third IP in the list of sockpuppets as there have been no edits from it for several days. O Fenian (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Added based on their first edit being to Talk:Giant's Causeway, the same target as several previous sockpuppets. O Fenian (talk) 09:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And according to Dame edna uk's talk page they are caught in some sort of IP block due to their IP recently being used by Factocop, how odd.. O Fenian (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

I seem to be blocked from editing and I am guessing because my name has been brought up in this investigation. There doesnt seem to be any evidence against me other than I have edited on a page that a blocked user has done so in the past just the same as OFenian has done, which is not neccessarily a crime...I hope! I think if you look at the comments I have made, they have all been very constructive and non-disruptive unlike titled offender. Certainly the first IP 147.114.44.200 seems to have posted on the Quassim Cassam WP which couldn't be any further from topics relating to Northern Ireland. As for the evidence against Factocop, you have just posted past conversations from a discussion. Thats not really evidence. http://www.wisegeek.com/are-we-really-running-out-of-ip-addresses.htm And given that there are more internet connections than IP addresses there ofcourse are going to be a lot of people operating as socks without realising.Dame edna uk (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
It seems a bit unfair to me that this has been set up when he is blocked with talk page disabled and won't be able to defend himself. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will spell it out, since it is not apparent to most users here. I have confirmed a bunch of accounts as being socks of this user; this user claims that that this is a whole bunch of people on a huge banking network. If this is the case, then why is this user editing almost exclusively on (Northern) Ireland-related topics with the same motives? –MuZemike 04:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I've range-blocked for seven days - I'm not sure if that's too short/too long? Usual disclaimer applies: "I won't consider it wheel-warring if... etc etc". TFOWR 16:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Given that the range was already blocked, I've restored the original block duration. I iz na idoit. Apologies, Tnxman307. TFOWR 17:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * Range is 147.114.44.192/27 NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 04:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * User talk unblocked. patrolling admins reblock if there isn't a reason not to in ~24 hours. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 04:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

✅, along with a new sock, User:Clonbony. –MuZemike 16:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts on the IP range, behaviorally? NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Since no admin is doing anything here, My opinion is you could block the IPs per Wikistalk as they match as much as the other socks do. -- DQ  (t)  (e)  12:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked for one week. I doubt a CU will confirm or deny whether the IPs are linked to Factocop, but without access to CU evidence I'm happy to use WP:DUCK. TFOWR 12:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * All blocked for a certain period, let's close this. -- DQ  (t)  (e)  02:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

25 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 " ~ "''

Homebirdni has recently returned after a break of several months, and is showing an unhealthy interest in disruptively stalking my edits. For example I corrected an edit made by an IP editor on Exeter International Airport, and despite never having edited the article befoere Homebirdni‎ insists that I (and Mo ainm) "Please discuss before making an edit" "Please discuss your change in talk page first" and "Please discuss your change first", all without even saying what the problem with the edit was.

I have two main disruptive stalkers who use sockpuppets in the general topic area of Northern Ireland, one is and the other is Factocop. Evidence pointing to Factocop is the use of "O_Fenian" as opposed to the correct "O Fenian", see here, here and here for Factocop, and here and here for Homebirdni.

There is also the matter of not putting a space between punctuation and their signature, see for example this and this for Factocop (due to the size of the diff window it is not particularly apparent looking there, if you scroll down to the bottom of the page it is apparent) or virtually every post by him on User talk:Factocop, see here, here and here (or virtally every other talk page post they make) for Homebirdni.

Also see this post to Factocop's talk page, which shows a remarkable knowledge of events prior to the Homebirdni account being created.

There are other common things and articles too, but I would prefer not to give this sockmaster too much information on how he can be identified unless absolutely necessary. O Fenian (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

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

From what I can see, the similarities between myself and Factocop are clear. We both speak english, we like the colour blue, love spring time, chineese food, and we both disagree with the motives of O________Fenian. So obviously we must be the same person. For the record this is why I took time away from Wiki because of users like this who really seem intent on ruining wiki for everyone else. I'm fed up already after only a few days back.

ps. I just thought it was necessary to use _ to represent a space in order to find a user in the search bar. Homebirdni (talk) 10:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that you both spell "chineese" incorrectly. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If you think that's interesting then I suggest you get out more. Apparently americans spell 'centre' - 'Center'. Isn't that interesting?Homebirdni (talk) 11:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Attacking other editors doesn't help your cause. --NorthernCounties (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not an attach. What is an attach is a sockpupet investigation. Its an accusation and by that nature is an attach. This is the 2nd sockpuppet investigation O~Fenian has taken against me. And I am fed up with it already. I want to be able to disagree, agree, discuss, contribute and collaborate with other users provided they have no hidden agenda, without being faced with this sort of shit! I'm angry. Is this what wikipedia is about?Homebirdni (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sarcasm about simple typo's doesn't help too. --NorthernCounties (talk) 12:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well a spelling mistake is being used as evidence against me. shows how ridiculous this is.Homebirdni (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know why I waste my time, but I wasn't submiting evidence. I was merely providing advice within the comments section. --NorthernCounties (talk) 12:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S If you feel it's ridiculous, ignore the accusation and then the process run it's course. And if you're proven not to be related to Factocop, you shall be vindicated. --NorthernCounties (talk) 12:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I know you weren't submitting evidence but a sockpuppet investigation is not really a place to offer advice. I was just highlighting how ridiculous some of the evidence is. You already made suggestions that I was a sock so why would you want to help me?Homebirdni (talk) 12:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * He looks very sockery, to me. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to reluctantly agree that the same behavior and attitudes are being exhibited. WP:QUACK.  --HighKing (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I'll call it: based on behavioral evidence, I've blocked and tagged Homebirdni as a sock of Factocop. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 22:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

27 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 " ~ "''

Unsurprisingly, right after Homebirdni was blocked, Afterlife10 returns to editing after a similar length of break in editing as Homebirdni, and involves himself in the exact same disputes as well as remonstrating over the block of Homebirdni. For example this involving himself in the same debate on Talk:Derry that Homebirdni (he many more edits to that debate too) was involved in. Then there is the revert to Homebirdni's version on Carlingford Lough, and involving himself in the blocking of Homebirdni at User talk:HelloAnnyong, and making the same claims about supposed sockpuppetry involving other users.

Although they have changed the formatting of their posts since their return, the evidence from before suggests that they are Factocop/Homebirdni. Compare Afterlife10 and Homebirdni posting to ANI, both about an edit war involving me that they started. Homebirdni's post starts "User:O_Fenian is involved in an edit war on this page", and Afterlife10's post starts "User:O_Fenian is edit warring on said page". Both use "O_Fenian" (see recent case for more about this), and both use "User:O_Fenian" without any wiki-formatting. In that post Afterlife10 also fails to put a space inbetween puncutation and his signature (see recent case for more about this), as they did here, here, here, here, here and so on. Coincidentally they have stopped doing it since their return, which happened to be after it was pointed out they do that.

Here they claim to have received an email from a friend, which at the bare mininum makes them a meatpuppet involving himself in thr same disputes as Homebirdni/Factocop, but the evidence would suggest they are in fact the same person anyway.

Also added 212.183.128.33, since they are involved in the same edit war at Carlingford Lough. They may be someone else completely, but it seems sensible to list them here anyway. O Fenian (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Quacking is getting loud around here Mo ainm  ~Talk  16:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Just for information, in a previous SPI in which Afterlife10 was suspected of being Homebirdni, a CU came up negative - see Sockpuppet investigations/Homebirdni/Archive -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
It's Afterlife10 is related to Homebirdni. No comment on the IP. TN X Man 15:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Per the similarity of these three edits, I've blocked Afterlife as a sock, and blocked the IP for a week. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

03 June 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 " ~ "''

Two days after we closed out the last case, a new editor shows up and comments on the same stuff as previous Factocop socks. The check should be done against and. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:30, 3 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
✅ –MuZemike 15:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Imagine that. Blocked and tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

18 May 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Factocop used the 147.114.44.208 account first at Carlingford Lough here. This was the initial article he was blocked for using multiple accounts which is used to always change the United Kingdom to Northern Ireland. He then used this account along with 147.114.44.209 to request an unblock at his talkpage:, , and. Both accounts are now being used to cause the same disruption at Foyle River here:, , , and.

I also suspect the drive by edits made by 212.183.128.12 and 212.183.128.64 at Foyle River are also Factocop as well. Factocop has a long history of using multiple accounts and IP's to conduct his campaign. Bjmullan (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Also appears to be a sock puppet,. 4 edits, 2 on Mullans page, 1 @ ANI. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a witch hunt. No way can one user have 5 IPs. I am not factocop for the record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.199.195 (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "No way can one user have 5 IPs.". Sure you can:

is clearly another sock as they headed straight for the Foyle River article as well. MarnetteD | Talk 23:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC) Having looked at page history of River Foyle WP, I can not find a single edit by Factocop so what is the link to this user? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.16 (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 2 at work (refresh DHCP or change workstation)
 * 3 at home (reset your DCE)
 * Plus your 1 mobile IP (also easily changed) = 6, in fact. JoeSperrazza (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * On the face of it there's none. It's just someone guessing. Factocop ip data is long since stale (unless a checkuser has clandestinely kept some) and there should be "no comment on ip accounts" so this may as well be closed now. Van Speijk (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Van Speijk, its been a while. This is based on quack. But just wondering how you came across it? Contrib check on Bjmullan by any chance? Murry1975 (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly right, and your point being? BTW, I just looked at your recent edits as well, and you've a real case to answer on the so called "Irish" actor, but that's for another time and place. Van Speijk (talk) 22:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sourced bud, and you should remember it from editing when not logged in ;) But hounding is against guidelines and thanks for admiting it. Murry1975 (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not your "bud", it's currently sourced to 1) a horoscope site and 2) a fan-pic site, and stop talking shite about hounding. Van Speijk (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said to you when you edited it as an IP, source it. BTW bud I use that word alot. Murry1975 (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Here'e this IP's link to River Foyle: JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Joe, there is no link to Factocop. I will set up an account, if that's what it will take for me to be allowed to continue to edit....I also think WP:quack can apply to any user seen to be collaborating. Murry and Bjmullan seem to be conjoined, with collaboration/blocking on so so many articles.
 * Do you think we are zipped up the back? Not Factocop? Then explain why you contacted Mabuska here? Mabuska has never edited at River Foyle but I take it you know him from your disruptive time at Carlingford Lough. With or without an account you are a disruptive editor with only one agenda. Bjmullan (talk) 08:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * its not difficult. I had seen in your edit history that you had opposed Mabuska on many topics. What's the point of having wiki tools If users are not allowed to use them? You seem to pretty consistent with your edits, mainly editing on NI related pages, and blocking any attempt to recognize NI as anything. Nationalust POV seems rife on wiki. And Murry is just as bad. This should really be an SPI in relation to Bjmullan, Murry, and perhaps user:Mo_aimn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.16 (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

,Whilst the IPs accusations are valid in regards to Bjmullan and Mo ainm, i must say that i have no clue as to whoever this editor is. I doubt it would be Factocop since the last time me and him were involved in a discussion (at Eglinton over the use of Irish in the lede) me and him were of opposite viewpoints and he didn't take too well to me. If it's him then it's some come around for him to message me for support. Mabuska (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest Mabuska that if you have concerns about me you raise it at the appropriate place rather than slinging mud in the hope that it would stick. It's not the first time I have asked you to assume good faith. Bjmullan (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In reply to Mabuska, that some of the IPs above have admitted to being Factocop on his talkpage mainly the ones from RBS, which then one of the IPs has then induicated is his place of work. Quack-quack and location. Factocop also may know you have had disagreements on issues with Bjmullan, whether you disagreed with him over an issue or not he may see you being an ally and opposed to the other editors invovled and probably why he canvassed you. Murry1975 (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Murry, are you saying that there are only 1 or 2 rbs staff members in London? I would thought.Rbs would have thousands of staff in a financial hub like london, but I could be wrong.
 * Will I e-mail them to find out :) ?Murry1975 (talk) 06:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * yes please go ahead. Email a bank and ask for secure information good idea. :)

Curious that an IP who I don't recal ever having any interaction with would bring my name up in this, wouldn't expect anything more for Mabuska always quick to throw mud in my direction at any chance it gets laughable really, so Mabuska Shit or get off the pot Mo ainm  ~Talk  16:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you done two reverts early on Mo Ainm, but he probably remembers you from another time.... Murry1975 (talk) 06:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Mo_ainm, it is not difficult to see that all 3 of you are closely linked and collaborated on so many NI related articles. That is obvious. And its no surprise that he all 3 of you are within 1 hr of each other.
 * Do you know Mo Ainm from before? Murry1975 (talk) 07:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Factocop you are more than welcome to do an SPI on me and Murray and Bjmullan, it will finally shut you and your buddy Mabuska up. Mo ainm ~Talk  09:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * why you keep mentioning factocop in relation to every IP is staggering. I have no doubt that you are smart enough not to use the same IP but behavioral evidence would suggest that you 3 are related. Editing on this page within 1 hr of each other I'm sure is just a coincidence. I'm curious Mo_ainm, what account did you hold before this? You seemed to have a very good grasp of wiki policy even with your early edits, notifying users with a welcome template even though you had also just joined the project.

I'd just like to point out that a background check has been carried out on you before no, as well as me because we edit on the same articles. Surprise, surprise nothing untoward was found. It is not a coincidence that you, and sometimes I edit on the articles because of our history. I've been watching the proceedings on this for a couple of days... why? Because it's on my watchlist, along with all your talk pages? Am I a stalker? Perhaps... or maybe I just use my watchlist for what it is intended. One further note, I assume Mo edited with as an IP contributor prior to setting up an account as we all have. I@ couldn't however list the IPs I used prior to setting up my account as it was so long ago. --NorthernCounties (talk) 09:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * NorthernCounties, your right using the watchlist is not illegal, and is a tool, so why Murry has an issue with this I don't know. Could you show us the results if the background check that you and Mo_ainm had undergone? Was this an SPI case you are referring to? Just looking at Mo_ainm edit history, he has recently edited on "City of Derry Airport", which us a page you claim to patrol. Coincidence? My point is that editing on the same page is not a reason to accuse someone of being another user, and in this case factocop does not have a history if editing on river Foyle page, from where this SPI stemmed from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.46 (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not sure how to get the results, I just know I was given the all clear when Factocop did a counter claim against us once. I'm sure any admin that reviews this page will have access to that, and contributed to this page so that they would be made aware of this, and save them time. As to whether the IPs currently being questioned are a reincarnation of Factocop... I don't know. I shall not be partaking in a search for evidence either... why? Look at the weather outside! ;) --NorthernCounties (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I do a quick search for SPIs with your name in title but couldn't find anything so I'm guessing they were logged under another users name. Either way your sincerity is convincing. But certainly the relation between Mo_ainm, Bjmullan and Murry is questionable, and that seems more intriguing than the relation of IPs to a defunct account. Although the page is on your watchlist, I was surprised to see you here when you had not mentioned. It's things like this that raise suspicion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.46 (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Stop beating about the bush and file an SPI on me and any editor that you want. Your attempts at deflection are laughable Mo ainm  ~Talk  15:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No need to get aggressive Mo_ainm. I'd say there is more than enough behavioural evidence. Though it may take some time putting together all the evidence as you 3 have "worked together" and supported each other on so so many edits and pages, so forgive me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.46 (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A few of things, 1, Factocop isnt a defunct account its blocked, hence why "he" is using IPs- mind you this week he hasnt used the RBS ones wonder if he got a fright?, 2, behavourial evidence between the 3 of us? Not if you actually look at some of the edits bud, you will see a difference in all of them, 3, Hasnt edited on a specific article? That doesnt matter same edit on others with same reasoning -quack- 4, anyone reading your comments and factocops will see the same usage of counter threats, and grammar 4, I have never complained about using watchlists- the opposite actually so read properly the next time. Are you factocop? Yes, and another dozen or so socks and even more IPs. I was asking a friend about being able to use and leave Ips, he explained there are actually a few ways, resseting as discussed above, or even logging into open networks, not hard in cities and then re-logging when you are back there. Another one he called "hitching", I dont know if that is what it is called really or just what he calls it, basically put it is logging in to an open proxy server and using this as an IP, this can be done quite easy and actually changes your ISP in most cases to that of the proxy your hitching. Murry1975 (talk) 10:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * ,Ha! Your "friend" seems to know a lot about changing IP addresses. What response did you get when you contacted RBS? Please share. So all 6 IPs have edited on the exact same pages as Factocop? No. I suggest you read WP:Quack before you start using it as evidence. The same grammar and counter threats? How is that even measurable? Looking at the IPs they have somevery distinct editing far away from anything Factocop related. Yes some of your edits ate different but a large number centre around the same old articles. Coincidence I'm sure. I suggest this SPI be closed and a check be done on the filing parties. Peace out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.38 (talk) 11:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah its his job, well its what his company does and in some cases stops people doing. So are you going to file an SPI or what Factocop? The e-mail to RBS? I didnt ask how many people work there. Why would I do that? I am only interested in one. So file the SPI (dont do it on company time) and then see that we are so unrelated its unreal. Murry1975 (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * yeah sure, your "friend". I don't think Factocop can file an SPI if he is blocked. You said previously that were considering contacting rbs? Did you do so? And what did they say? The point was made that there are thousands of rbs staff in london, possibly all on a similar IP so finding 1 may be difficult. But I'm sure your "friend" can help. This SPI has gone way off topic. Move to close. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.38 (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No it hasnt, every time you type you show more similarities to the original account. Funny that the only way to stop this SPI, which btw is only the first step, is to claim its us who are the socks and you are an unconnected passer-by. RBS have a very good IT team, you know, and a very strict usage of internet, one point being nothing that would reflect in a negative way on the company, especially if it could be political. But as you know it would be hard to lock it down to one individual, without other information, background, where there from when they went back home on holidays, stuff like that. But it is possible :) Murry1975 (talk) 11:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Simply saying that someone exhibits similar typing traits is not evidence. And is uncivil by trying to mislead an admin. Everytime you type you exhibit more similarities to Bjmullan and Mo_ainm. Looking above, there are 6 IPs that I doubt are all related but the only link I can see is that some edited on an NI related page which Factocop might have edited on had his account not be blocked. That is not evidence. IPs edited on River Foyle page, not Factocop, but both you and Bjmullan supported each other, and interesting that Bjmullan had never previously edited on RIver Foyle page until recently when IP attempted to make an edit that you disagreed with.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.38 (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You see you were Factocop now as that is blocked because of your actions you now edit as an IP, and I note again you are just trying to turn things around with the same points being made against you. One thing you should note id the two boys spell better than me. The IP is you, is it not? Thats why your here. And given away more than you bargained for. See you later. Murry1975 (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Murry, there is significant overlap with the edits of yourself, Bjmullan and Mo_ainm. Mabuska also agrees. This must mean that I am a sock of Mabuska, right?
 * Callil, I am disappointed that you are even entertaining this SPI. Please do a check on the 3 users I have mentioned as there is clear coherence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.38 (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Right, first of all stop talking all of you. This is not a discussion forum and it's certainly not a cage fight. Any further ad hominem or incivility will result in sanctions. Second, on the evidence there is significant editing overlap and similarity in comment styles from the listed Vodafone and RBS Ips to "call duck" on this. The fact that these are related to an account with a history of lying about block evasion (Factocop), have similarities in posting style, and again significant posting overlap just makes this all the more conclusive in terms of behavioural evidence. Unless another admin has a substantive disagreement with this I will enact the blocks in the next 24 hours-- Cailil  talk 12:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

IPs blocked on the basis of behavioural evidence and WP:DUCK-- Cailil  talk 13:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note some were already blocked by another sysop and that some had previously been blocked for block evading in relation to this same user account in March-- Cailil  talk 13:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also blocked User:212.183.128.250 (block extended as part of a wider sock farm), User:109.154.199.195 and User:86.150.188.221. These 3 all commented on this in exactly the same style at User talk:Bwilkins and have been involved at River Foyle-- Cailil  talk 13:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * All IPs blocked, so closing. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

08 June 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Mainly WP:DUCK. A new editor immediately starts editing in a way that makes it obvious they are not a new user at all, and in a contentious area with the exact same focus and arguments as Factocop. This new user has now edited the Talk pages of Giant's Causeway and Derry using the same language and arguments (The article at Derry should be at LondonDerry, and Northern Ireland is a country). CodSaveTheQueen hasn't edited too many articles, but of the ones that have been edited, the similarities are striking. It was the discussion at Londonderry that initially raised my suspicions. -- HighKing (talk) 12:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In the past, Factocop participated in a discussion Talk:Giant's Causeway to make Northern Ireland as the location rather than UK, but was blocked before the discussion reached a firm consensus or conclusion. Within a week of joining and without prior participation in the discussions, CodSaveTheQueen implements changes.
 * Also, Factocop expressed a stance on the Londonderry/Derry title many times e.g. here, which is a view once again raised by CodSaveTheQueen for example here.

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

I think if you look at my edits, they have been constructive, and I've simply been making my way along the coast and ulster way. I came to Giants Causeway that way and applied an infobox which had been agreed in the discussion page. I only came across Derry page when I was looking into County Londonderry and coastal towns. Jeeezzzzzz!!!!CodSaveTheQueen (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Ohh and where have I argued that Northern Ireland is a country?CodSaveTheQueen (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * and another...User:Cbowsie and User:Qichina have also made similars edit to myself in recent times at Derry page. Much like myself, they were probably not fully aware of the situation.CodSaveTheQueen (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * As an editor who had no direct dealings with FActocop or his original bunch of socks but has plenty of dealing with his last batch, Quack Qauck. His edit sytle is improving but still uses the same language, edit pattern and deflection. Murry1975 (talk) 04:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry links are as follows HomebirdNI, a sock of factocop, this edit a year ago on the article, dame enda uk a sock of Factocop, from master sock  and Cod  yesterday, note the changing of country for the UK to state in these. Thank you for your time. Murry1975 (talk) 07:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Misleading statement by Murry1975, why one user would want to lie to have a user blocked is beyond me. Here is the discussion which shows a distinct consensus for change, and here is the edit made by Murry1975 that goes against the consensus . Murry1975's edit went also went against the template, as UNESCO does not take recognise countries, but members. So scrap Murry1975's comments.CodSaveTheQueen (talk) 09:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not misleading the diffs show for themselves. The "edit" against consensus is a revision of the edit by Cod, over a year after the discussion which didnt change the geo infobox anyway,  the consensus reached dealt with the UNESCO infobox  "Ok heres a simple proposal which i've got from the following UNESCO heritage site article; Studenica monastery. Why do we ust simply state instead of State party/country/region/constituent country etc. etc. the following simple input" and so the proposal for the UNESCO box goes to reach consensus. So there was no consensus on the geo infobox, but on the UNESCO box, which my edit did not effect. Murry1975 (talk) 10:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Murry1975, these points are nothing to do with this investigation. Please comment on content dispute at appropriate page. The implemented a infobox, which was discussed as a compromise. Yes the conversation was a while ago, true, but I did not see you join it either. The infobox dispute stemmed from whether Northern Ireland can be considered a country or not, and so the template was changed to be neutral. Please stop attempting to railroad this investigation. "Ok heres a simple proposal which i've got from the following UNESCO heritage site article; Studenica monastery. Why do we ust simply state instead of State party/country/region/constituent country etc. etc. the following simple input" I don't what this quote is about but the change was made in line with this. You went ahead and inserted NI as a region which was the start of the dispute. And you made the change without even consulting the talk page. Please no more comments here on the Giants Causeway discussion as it is simply not fair on me to be accused on socking yet you railroad the case with lies.CodSaveTheQueen (talk) 12:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have requested CU also, but I believe it's pretty obvious to anyone who has dealt with Factocop in the past. Clearly, you're not a new editor. So who have you edited as in the past? --HighKing (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * All accounts are . Random pickup of where socks last left off, random change between not capitalizing, and actually capitalizing just like this and this. Also same contributing articles as previous socks. There's more, but I think that's a good list to start. Blocked and tagged. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  20:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

15 June 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

There are a number of editors that are well known to use lots of socks. Looking at this editors contributions, I believe this shows a definite link between Factocop and on looking further, a different set of circumstances showing a strong link to LevenBoy as well. The first noticable attribute is that this editor was not a "new" editor when started editing. Based on the unlikely coincidences and crossovers I believe this one is quacking loudly. --HighKing (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * First the Factocop link. "Northern Arrow" popped up and reverted an edit I made at Politics in the British Isles - an article he had never been active on before now.  But on looking back on the editor's contributions, this edit from April is practically identical to edits made by a recently banned sock of Factocop User:CodSaveTheQueen in the same subject area and with the same sentiments and language as Factocop.
 * Linking to User:LevenBoy is based on a pattern of stalking *my* edits which I've not uncovered till now. LevenBoy is Topic Banned by Cailil in this area and appears to have abandoned the account.
 * Most recently (aside from the revert mentioned above), "Northern Arrow" commented and edited an article Clifton Antiquarian Club I had just commented on.
 * Before that again, he queried the reasons from User:Nyttend on an article Reading Cloggies that was deleted - I checked and I had nominated it for deletion.
 * When "Northern Counties" started editing, one of the first things he did was to create (restore) an article called Primrose Day. It got tagged by User:Favonian for refimprove, and "Northern Arrow" found some references but didn't edit after Feb 2010.  In April 2010, LevenBoy removes the last tag even though there is no reason for LevenBoy to "find" that article and perform that edit.


 * I have to say, since I filed this, I agree that this is unlikely to be Factocop. But I haven't ruled this out completely yet.  There are a number of interesting links...
 * I'm convinced that this is a sock nonetheless. The problem is actually determining which sock farm this account comes from.  Let's not forget User:MidnightBlueMan and looking at the crossover between Van Speikj and that account is an eye opener.
 * From an administrative point of view though, since I doubt Factocop is the primary account, I'd have no objections if this report is closed - although I have more "evidence" being collected. I'm loath to post any details here publicly.  I'd request that perhaps I can send details to an interested clerk via email and take it from there - perhaps it'll result in a different report being filed in the near future.  I'll warn that it's a little and detailed.  --HighKing (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Cailil, I agree with most of your assessment below, thanks for adding the summary. I think if you take "Primrose Day" behaviour and in conjunction with "Reading Cloggies" "stalking" you can see the bigger picture.  Also with "Clifton Antiquarian Club".  Why has "Northern Arrow" focused in on my edits so early in their editing history?  In fact - how did "Northern Arrow" even find this SPI report?  This is not a new editor.  Perhaps there's justification for a CU?  --HighKing (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Likely The user seems to be waiting a bit then just removes the tag. User has done this thing multiple times, he has 10+ sockpuppets noted. This most likely is another. Ob tund <em style="font-family:Courier">Talk 02:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Factocop: What is this about? I fail to see anything here that suggests I'm either Factocop or CodSaveTheQueen. Please show me the evidence. The complainant mentions Politics in the British Isles. This is a new article in a high profile and controversial area and I have not just "popped up" there. Yes, I reverted the complainant's edit. He appears to be attempting to get me banned so that he can then restore the text on this article which I think is subject to 1RR. LevenBoy: I vaguely recall that mentioned article. I can only think that if LevenBoy was "stalking" the complainant he was also interested in other editors who interacted with him. Northern Arrow (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The account User:Northern Arrow is actually older than Factocop, as is the even older account User:LevenBoy, which hasn't edited in a year. There were CU checks back when LevenBoy was active that didn't pick him up, although I am not sure how detailed the search was or if they looked for sleepers. I can't rule it out, but I'm having difficulty connecting the dots in a fashion that would justify blocking editors here.  Might be unrelated, might have just been filed too soon for the evidence to be more clear, I'm not sure which.  Leaving open for another opinion, although none have jumped at the chance so far.  There are some similarities but just as many differences. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  13:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * From the point of view of a sysop who has administered in the topic area and had to deal with Factocop's disruption on and off for years now, I'd say from a behavioural standpoint Northern Arrow is not Factocop. There is however behaviour consistent with WP:Troubles sanctioned users like LevenBoy or User:Van Speijk. The Primrose Day connection with LevenBoy, while absolutely not conclusive, is striking. To my mind there's an equal behavioural connection with Van Speijk who has not edited on WP since June 7 2012 (after being topic banned) 10 days before Northern Arrow returns to WP after over 27 months of absence. Van Speijk has openly stated that he is prepared to sock to avoid the restrictions that I and other sysops have placed on him. Moreover the wording of Northern Arrow's summaries are very interesting and belie this account's 79 edits. A key instance is the use of the term "last stable version" a commonly abused term in WP:TROUBLES edit-wars (by both sides I might add). Again interestingly this is Northern Arrow's first edit in over 2 years. While I feel there's not enough evidence to declare "duck" here, there is something quite odd about Northern Arrow's edit summaries - "restoring" articles and references to "pipe-linking" and "stable versions" are wikipedia jargon that I'd be very surprised to see anyone pick-up in so few edits-- Cailil  talk 16:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Since we both see this as not likely being Factocop, but you have more connections with other players, wouldn't this better as a separate SPI with those new, currently unlisted connections? If you can round up diffs, it might be worth the while for requesting a checkuser for the new report and just closing this one.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  01:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll take one last look in the morning, but I don't think NA is a sock of anyone. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  04:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't find anything else, if there is more, we can open a new SPI when it's found and we'll look at it. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  00:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

20 April 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

IP46.7.113.111 was blocked for quacking like Factocop on the Derry article talkpage, but it was unclear if he was. Dubs boy was set up and edited from that IP, a fact which Dubs boy has admitted. The AE outcome was not conclusive on if Dubs boy was actually Factocop, an SPI was suggested. As Factocop has edited out of IPs before, mainly in England, south-east around London, but also Northern Ireland, one question raised at AE was would an ROI IP be possible? Well yes as he (already evidenced by his work IP which he used) works for RBS, and quite easily can be on business over in ROI, as Ulster Bank is part of the company. Also receiving ROI braodband is not that difficult in NI either, but it is less likely. My submission is an expansion on the behavioral evidence.


 * On Carl Frampton, removing the Irish Flag;
 * Factocop
 * Dubs boy
 * Classing edits he disagrees with as vandalism;
 * Factocop
 * Dubs boy
 * Removing unwanted comments as housekeeping;
 * Factocop
 * Dubs boy
 * The pointing out of having "socked"
 * Factocop
 * Dubs boy

The edits outside of the disruptive too show a similar vain mainly around soccer artilces. The user has followed my edits, as previously Factocop follow and, admin  has previously warned Dubs boy about his behavior. Murry1975 (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You cant just add to the sock list, and adding an IP you know isnt you, and I know it isnt you, is diruptive. If you want to open one when this one concludes go ahead.... Murry1975 (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a rule that says you have to present evidence, and thanks for edit warring, just like Factocop has done and been blocked for. Behavioral evidence in abundance. Murry1975 (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I've added anon IP as Mabuska had made the connection with myself at ANI. Murry1975 believes I am Factocop, Mabuska suggested that I am the anon IP, and I believe that the anon IP is Factocop. I believe this to be true based on the IPs obsession with WP:Derry and the naming issue. Factocops last telling contribution before being disabled was to edit at the Derry Talk page. The IPs have almost exclusively edited this page. It makes sense that they wish to pick up where Factocop left off.Dubs boy (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Lets tackle these edits one by one. To note that my editing is somewhat sporadic compared with Factocop who seemed to be a daily wikipedia. fiend. To suggest that I am Factocop because once every 4 months I look at Murry1975s edits, just as Factocop did with Highking and Bjmullan, would be to suggest that Murry1975 is Highking and Bjmullan, 2 users with checkered histories and with very similar edit histories to MUrry1975. Murry1975 leapt to the defence of Highking at ANI and even removed my comment.
 * 1) It was very easy to find the SPI on Highking because when first linked with Factocop, it was only natural that I would check out Factocops page. Its at the very bottom. Factocop did the research. I used Ctrl+C. Not very difficult.
 * 2) "house keeping" vs "housekeeping". Tomato vs Tomato(american). Look the same but different.
 * 3) On Vandalism, at page Captain Lightfoot, Murry1975 had initially reverted my edit, when I made the edit again, an anonymous IP :) shows up. The edit was in line with IMOS, and the IP was repeatedly reverting. User:Canterbury Tail agreed with edit, though did help me understand the difference between Vandalism and edit warring, an innocent mistake. If you are interested User:Murry1975 has made 5 reverts in the last 2 days claiming Vandalism. Its a word that is branded about more often than needed. I would consider removing my comments as Vandalism though.
 * 4) On Carl Frampton, I more than likely followed Murry1975 to that page. Forgive me. There in lies the problem. Where Factocop has edited, Murry1975 has also done so. I'm not sure who is following who.

Take this SPI with a pinch of salt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubs boy (talk • contribs) 22:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I've added anon IP as Mabuska in his infinite wisdom has made another personal attack at ANI, despite me advising anon IP to accept status quo on related topic here .Dubs boy (talk) 00:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Considering Murry was collating evidence before your AN/I post how can it be in response to it? I'm in favour of an SPI on you, that IP, and Factocop due to the similarities in their editing history and style. Querying about the IP and you is hardly a personal attack. If feel that that is the case go and file a report. Mabuska (talk) 09:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no rule that forbids me adding another account to the sock suspect list, as a form of defense. Mabuska has suggested that I am the IP. Murry1985(u) has suggested that I am Factocop. I am neither but it could be that the IP and Factocop are one and the same and for that reason that IP should be included. If it is a red herring then it will have no bearing on the case. To remove the IP as a suspect is to deny me adequate defense and is very shady indeed. Please stop edit warring and allow an admin to decide how this SPI should play out. TY.Dubs boy (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

On anon IP, I advised anon IP to accept status quo on related topic here, but did support his edit at Nigel Dodds. This edit was quickly reverted by Murry1975. I did not revert or edit war, which is a trait of Factocop as highlighted by Murry1975. Though as User:Vanjagenije observed below, Murry1975 also has an edit warring streak by initiating an edit war on this page. I sadly took the bait. I think at one time or another everyone is guilty of edit warring.Dubs boy (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
and both broke the WP:3RR here more than once here, on this page. Murry1975 reverted as many as 7 times in less than two hours. has made 6 reverts  in the same time-span. I think both should be temporarily blocked for edit-warring. Please, add your evidence for the connection of to the other two. Explain why you believe he is a sockpuppet. Can you provide some more evidence of connection between and Factocop? What you presented in not very convincing. And, yes, and, please stop edit-warring here, and please stop arguing about thing not connected to this IP. Other editors have full right to add more suspected socks to the investigation. You are not the "owner" of this investigation. That, of course, does not mean that anybody is allowed to edit-war.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  14:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't ever try to remove comments from a SPI case again, like you just did. That is serious disruption of the process. Only WP:SPI Clerks and WP:CheckUsers are allowed to remove comments from SPI cases, and only if those are irrelevant or disruptive.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  15:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The evidence is not sufficient to connect Dubs boy to Factocop. I asked the case filer to provide more evidence, but all he does was to delete my question. No answer was given. IPs are stale, so there is no point to investigate them further. Closing this case with no action.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)