Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Happy Geographer/Archive

Report date August 3 2009, 09:26 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Rannpháirtí anaithnid

User(s) adding historical populations figures to Irish towns, cities and counties. User(s) have been contacted via talk page to engage in discussion about same at WikiProject Ireland, but does not. Good faith about multiple accounts was assumed before. Last night, Sarah777 notice accounts being used simultaneously:


 * 01:29 Navan‎ (diff; hist) . . (+923) . . Navan Anuaimh (talk | contribs) (demographics 100pc increase in ten years)
 * 01:26 Rathangan, County Kildare‎ (diff; hist) . . (+843) . . Prosperous Pikeman (talk | contribs) (Population growth details)
 * 01:26 Prosperous, County Kildare‎ (diff; hist) . . (+830) . . Prosperous Pikeman (talk | contribs) (demographics popualation explosion)
 * 01:21 Longford‎ (diff; hist) . . (+869) . . Drumlish Danny (talk | contribs) (population growth details)
 * 01:19 Letterkenny‎ (diff; hist) . . (+841) . . Drumlish Danny (talk | contribs) (demographics)
 * 01:16 Kilrush‎ (diff; hist) . . (+858) . . Labhras Raghallaigh (talk | contribs) (stair meideach)
 * 01:13 Kilcullen‎ (diff; hist) . . (+838) . . Straight Iwillrepair (talk | contribs) (history extra detail)
 * 01:12 Castledermot‎ (diff; hist) . . (+837) . . Straight Iwillrepair (talk | contribs) (history extra detail)
 * 01:11 Kill, County Kildare‎ (diff; hist) . . (+837) . . Straight Iwillrepair (talk | contribs) (history extra detail)
 * 01:08 Cobh‎ (diff; hist) . . (+839) . . Granuaile Unveiled (talk | contribs) (history)

--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users
 * This editor is obviously experienced, and edits in a very prepared manner with individual and distinct edits ready to be pasted in one minute apart. Given he or she knows the system well but does not engage and uses multiple SPAs beggars the question "Qui bono - who benefits?". Each reference creates a redlink to a yet-to-be-written article on a UCD Professor, while there are three unlinked notable authors makes me suspect some conflict of interest. It looks like spam to me.  Nelson50 T  11:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Could these possibly be more socks of Historian19 ? ww2censor (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Add User Reformed Yellowbelly as identified by Sarah777. RashersTierney (talk) 12:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect that this user is experienced enough to make edits, but is not well versed in wiki etiquette or how to communicate with other users. He is probably unaware that people are trying to communicate with him. The edits are good, they are cited (apart from one red link which he might intend to fill in later) and as such his edits should stand. AGF should still apply. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

All accounts but the master blocked and tagged. If disruption continues on the master account or socks indef blocks can be applied. Keeping this open to see if user is willing to discuss his edits. — Jake   Wartenberg  22:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Nja 247 20:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Had been marked as closed by admin Nja247
 * Conclusions
 * It's been around 30 hours since the case was closed. I shall archive it; further discussion should go on Happy Geographer's talk page. NW ( Talk ) 05:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)