Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hengistmate/Archive

26 June 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Following on from behavioural issues and harassment from the account, as described at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. As well as the behaviour described there (mostly through article talk), there's a separate issue of IPsocking for user talk page harassment. Note that Hengistmate's area of editing is WWI military history, particularly armoured vehicles.

A recent edit was a (presumably inadvertent) comment in a talk: thread that was logged-out as. I don't claim that this was socking, simply an error. Hengistmate soon changed the signature manually and confirmed ownership of this IP. It's an interesting IP though, the BT Centralplus ISP in Cambridgeshire.

For some time now I've had regular user talk: trolling from anon IPs (some listed here). This takes a similar form, regular posts which I blank, then their rapid re-posting. It doesn't even have to be their original comment, if they think it's uncomplimentary, they'll re-post it:. Although this isn't the only socking on my user talk, it's a distinctive group and it comes from BT Centralplus IPs in Cambridgeshire. They also show some posting history overlap with the WWI subjects of Hengistmate's interest. Clearest diffs are to look at the short contrib histories for IP 2..4  The style of these contributions is also very similar to Hengistmate's, particularly in popping up at other editor's talks and using it as an excuse to have a pop at me.

This is pretty straightforward use of an "anon" IP to harass. It's a regular pattern and it's long term. Per the recent logged-out edit, there's now also evidence to connect them to Hengistmate's ISP and local geography - this is in addition to their shared interest behavioural overlap. I request a CU, to confirm that it's Hengistmate behind it. This isn't trawling, we already have at least one local ISP IP that's linked. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' @User:Andy Dingley: Good luck getting a CU on any of these. I'm pretty sure CUs aren't allowed reveal the IPs of named accounts. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 15:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - CheckUsers will only connect an IP and account in extremely rare conditions (such as long term abuse) per WP:CHK Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Too stale to take action on the IPs now. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

21 November 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

See previous SPI report.

This episode is about

Previous version reverted to:

This began with a non-NPOV removal of a politically sensitive qualifier by. I don't think that's a good edit, I think their edit history is a problem for NPOV, but I don't believe they're connected to the anon IP
 * 

The socking is here:
 * 1) Do it again, this time without the snark.
 * 2) That's OK. While you're waiting, you could fill your time reading up on WP:CIVIL. Now do it again, without being a cock. The apology is optional.
 * 3) See if you can make the edit without snark. That's all. You know, the sort of snark you don'l like when it's directed at you. Give it a try.
 * 4) Still setting a good example?

This is different. It's not a content war, it's not even NPA, it's just this week's batch of long running anon IP trolling, and trolling from the puppetmaster account itself. IPs from this range have been at it for a long time. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I see this has been whitewashed shut already. Last time the attacks were rejected at ANI as they "should be at SPI". Then at SPI they were rejected, even though a logged-out mis-edit had already given the game away. Just WTF is the point of even pretending we still have a civility policy or any pretence of policies against socking (am I the only one who isn't running their own branch of Sock Shop?) Andy Dingley (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I would also draw the closing admins attention to our specific policy here, from WP:CheckUser
 * CheckUsers may state that different named accounts are operated from the same IP or range, so long as the actual IP address(es) are not specified, or if only non-specific details are given (such as the name of the country, region, or large ISP associated with the IP address).
 * Andy Dingley (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2014 (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

 * - --  DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  17:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the IP and the account for a week, as the logged out edits are clearly that of Hengistmate. The case wasn't "whitewashed shut", only that a checkuser declined to make a check and deferred it to behavioral evidence. Accounts are very rarely linked to IP addresses and the request has to meet the criteria here. Please note that the policy that you have quoted refers to different named accounts, not for IP addresses. Hinting around with any potential similarities between the account and IP's checkuser data is enough to be considered a disclosure. Mike V  •  Talk  23:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

11 December 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Too late to act on it now, but this was another Hengistmate IP sock, editing around his week's block for socking. 24/11, for 7 days Andy Dingley (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2014 (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

 * Nothing needs to be done as Andy says. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

23 February 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

is currently involved in an edit war at Plasticine where he is insisting on changing the spelling of 'fuze' which is heaviliy supported by all the available sources that specialise in the subject of military ordnance (discussed to the point of exhaustion at Talk:Plasticine). Hengistmate has deliberately inverted the sources (some of which he himself supplied) with this edit. Note particularly his insertion of (sic) after each 'fuze' in the quotes suggesting that it is an error on the part of the author (only problem being he has inserted them after 'fuze' in all the quotes in all three supporting references.

Then along comes and changes the spelling of 'fuze' to 'fuse', not only in the article text but also in the quotes from the sources (so that the quote no longer reflects the source). This edit was carried out at 20:14 22 February 2016. Just nine minutes later, Hengistmate uses his real account to delete the section entirely, claiming that the section ws not supported by the references (which it was). The issues surrounding that are not relevent to this SPI case.

I have not asked for checkuser because I am aware that you will not publicly connect a user to an IP address.

In view of the long history of socking behind this sock master, why has he not been indef blocked? 86.153.133.193 (talk) 12:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

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

The diff supplied above [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasticine&diff=705849834&oldid=705842719] in fact shows Hengistmate rearranging source material supplied by Andy Dingley [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasticine&type=revision&diff=705842327&oldid=705250347].

Two minutes before editing plasticine, 82.132.247.198 opposed Andy Dingley in another discussion [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turboshaft&diff=prev&oldid=706342664].

There is an ongoing dispute between Hengistmate and Andy Dingley at WP:ANI, where I have provided evidence and links to sources that do not use the disputed spelling. Hengistmate asserts that "I think I used plasticine" is insufficient support for using the material in the plasticine article, which seems a reasonable view to me.

was also highly active at the start of the dispute, and accused me of being a Hengistmate sock. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Plasticine&diff=prev&oldid=697891909] Burninthruthesky (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Rergardless of what the diff rearranged or altered, it still changed the article against the references, and marked the references as wrong (all three of them). Thank you for confirming that Hengistmate used the 82.145.215.191 account to have another edit war with Andy Dingley elsewhere - another quack from the duck.  All the references that you provided in support of 'fuse' were WP:TERTIARY sources such as dictionaries which hardly qualify as an authoritative source on the subject of military ordinance.  All the authoritative sources are against you.


 * Is https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=U4SuCAAAQBAJ a tertiary source? You haven't answered my earlier question - have you personally verified the wording in Jappy? Burninthruthesky (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It is a story, but I note that the synopsis uses 'fuzed' which I suspect a copy-writer got from the book (but this is not a reliable reference in itself). My local library (a couple of streets away) does not have a copy, but it is a story written by one Kerrin Freeman whose qualifications on the subject are unknown.  Luckily: Jappy is in my local library and I can now confirm the quote using 'fuze' as Jappy uses elsewhere in the book (based on a random thumbing).


 * Additional: The synopsis is most likely a direct quote from the book's dust jacket written by the author. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This is starting the content dispute here which is not the point of an SPI. I suggest that if you wish to continue this line you do so thataway. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Has another editor "personally verified" Jappy?
 * What you mean here, very obviously, is that you cited this book without even having read it. You read a carelessly written Amazon blurb about it, which used "fuse", and you then took that as a reference to support your prejudged position. However the actual book, the thing you're citing [sic] in support is very clearly using "fuze" throughout it.
 * I have a copy of Jappy, I expect Hengistmate does too. It's a well known book, on account of the Channel 4 connection. I think Hogben is still the better book, but that's by the bye. Both of them use fuze throughout. I have previously offered to post scans of either of these, because both you and Hengistmate have repeatedly mis-represented both of their contents. (No, I don't think you're a sock of Hengistmate, although that has been suggested). And now you have the shiny brass balls to question another editor's use of this source, when you've just been caught with your pants down over it. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * [As 86.145.215.191 - dynamic IPs over which I have no control]: I did have a suspicion of sockpuppetry at the time bearing in mind that both you and Hengistmate were both misusing references to hammer your spelling of 'fuze' into the article against overwhealming supporting references. However, that is totally beside the point to this ANI and in any case no case has been raised.  86.153.133.193 (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, wrote [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasticine&diff=prev&oldid=697848489 this] edit summary, in support of Andy Dingley's view which I refuted the previous day. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Plasticine&diff=697748772&oldid=697738758] Burninthruthesky (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Relevance?  86.153.133.193 (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's an apparently new person expressing exactly the same view just at the right time (and from Vodafone). Burninthruthesky (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, your argument there is somewhat vague as to what position you are taking. You do lean towrds 'fuse' but cite a dictionary which I would expect to carry the alternate spelling but it is a TERTIARY source, not being an authority on the subject.  86.153.133.193 (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you think I'm a sock of 85.255.234.198, then either open an SPI or shut the farage up. I am sick and tired of your sniping and insinuations, and your behaviour in all this, particularly about the Jappy source, is far from flawless. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The accusation by the OP is that Hengistmate has been engaging in sockpuppetry to support his interests in the dispute. These circumstances are relevant. I didn't say it was you, but I'm not convinced it was Hengistmate either. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced that this is Hengistmate, but looking at that last edit, does it really matter? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I see no evidence of sockpuppetry in these [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasticine&diff=prev&oldid=706342838] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasticine&diff=706344548&oldid=706342838] two edits. The justification for the second edit would stand equally regardless of the first. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Of course you don't. But then you seem determined to defend Hengistmate at all costs.  Probably because you are involved in exactly the same trolling and are equally guilty of misquoting the sources to support an incorrect word in the article.  And you are also trying to do so on this very page (the first post in the collapsed section above where you introduce the cite that you claimed supported 'fuse' - which would not seem to be the case).  86.153.133.193 (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * For the record, the above allegation of misrepresentation by me to support Hengistmate is also false   . Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * But that is not the source you misrepresented. The one that you did is fully documented in this SPI.  You have found one source only that supports your position.  You have misrepresented other sources that do not support you position.  This in spite of the overwealming number of sources that support the corrct spelling 'fuze', not shortage of which were documented by this contribution.  86.153.133.193 (talk) 11:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * As far as I recall, Andy Dingley's comment, "both you and Hengistmate have repeatedly mis-represented both of their contents" is also false. Burninthruthesky (talk) 11:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As this is an SPI, not the issue of your persistent misrepresentation of sources, it's in the hatted section above. Look for the phrase, "now you have the shiny brass balls to question another editor's use of this source, when you've just been caught with your pants down over it. " Andy Dingley (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I have now created Sockpuppet investigations/Andy Dingley. Burninthruthesky (talk) 12:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Closing with no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

01 March 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Hengistmate is currently involved in a dispute where he is trying to introduce false material into an article (addressed elsewhere). As an attempt to try to hammer his preferred version of the article. He resorted to an IP sock to revert his version of the article (See SPI report dated 23rd Feb). Hengistmate does have a history of using IP socks.

His latest IP sock attempted to close a 4RR report as 'stale' before an admin could impose a 48 hour block 48 for 3RR violation (diff).

Throughout this exercise Burninthruthesky has been actively defending Hengistmate's position, similarly misrepresenting sources to support an incorrect vesion of the article Plasticine; and actively defending Hengistmate at the 23rd Feb 2016 SPI report.

diffs: (confined to the SPI report else this will get absurdly long)

False claim Hengistmate had altered the spelling in the quoted sections from three sources.

introducing another unrelated IP

claiming that the IP sock opposed Andy elsewhere - evidence that he was targetting Andy Dingley

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hengistmate&diff=next&oldid=706486945 trying to support Hengistmates's version by claiming that his source had not been checked - which it has been. Hengistmate misquoted it]

Implying that a new contributor was a sock of someone (though it is not clear who)

Uncollapses a side discussion but conveniently fails to uncollapse the post that refuted it

tries once again to defend Hengistmate,

Tries once again to side with Hengistmate by quoting a source - unfortunately the source does not say what he claims it does

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hengistmate&diff=next&oldid=706788106 Once again tries to claim that Andy Dingley falsely claimed that Hengistmate and Burninthruthesky had misquoted the sources. It was actually three sources that he had misquoted]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasticine&diff=705849834&oldid=705842719 link to edit where Hengistmate misrepresented the sources - note that he has added '(sic)' after each word that disagreed with his preferred version. These are the three quotes that Burninthruthesky claims above that were not misquoted.]

There is an obvious WP:DUCK quacking here, and I'm sure that I am not the only one who can hear it. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

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

As an uninvolved user who has been watching this whole business unfold over several months now, I felt that I should add my observations. I should point out that I have not participated in the content dispute itself primarily because I know precious little of the subject matter itself.

. On its own the evidence provided could give grounds for suspicion of sockpuppetry, but IMHO, nothing more. It is not beyond the bounds of probability, that it could just be chance edit by a drive by user. What increases the liklihood to 'considerable suspicion' is that this IP address altered the quoted fragments from the references in exactly the same manner as Hengistmate did (diffs above). However...

. This a different matter. An IP trying to close a WP:AN3RR case ahead of admin action. That this IP address is Hengistmate is so obvious it does not require further comment. The fact these two IP addresses are the same provider (02) and that they come from a closely related IP group, confirms without doubt that the 82.132.247.198 and 82.132.247.172 edits were made by Hengistmate using a sock. As this is a serial sockmaster, an indefinite block should be enacted.

As for Burninthruthesky: this an entirely different matter. Their contribution histories shows no previous interaction or editing overlap.

I see insufficient evidence that Hengistmate and Burninthruthesky are the same editor.

Although the above might seem compelling as it stands, it would appear to me that there is an alternative driver at work here. From the (very long) dispute history, it seems that both Hengistmate and Burninthruthesky wish to include a particular spelling of a word (fuse) into the article Plasticine. It would also appear that there are a handful of users who prefer an alternate spelling (fuze) and can back it up with references. The article itself and the talk page have no shortage of references that support fuze. There also are allegations (supported by clear evidence) that both Burninthruthesky and Hengistmate are misquoting the references that they supply or were already supplied (even to the extent of altering the quoted fragments). This is not the venue to explore this further as it is adequately explored elsewhere.

I can only assume that Burninthruthesky is desparate to defend Hengistmate because his loss would leave him as the sole editor arguing against the references in what would become a unanimous consensus against him.

It would even appear that Burninthruthesky's deparation has gone so far as to raise a sockpuppetry case claiming that all the users who want the 'fuze' spelling are all sockpuppets of each other (and promptly shoots himself in the foot by including the two IP addresses from this report). -185.69.144.213 (talk) 11:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Forgive my asking: but although you have proven that the named accounts are unconnected (which I do not find surprising), you do not seem to have addressed the IP accounts. In my view, the socking is blatently obvious (though I accept that I am not the arbiter in such matters).  Why have they not been considered?  Also, in what way is the filing disruptive?  An IP user has filed, what I perceive as a reasonable report (as far as the IP addresses are concerned).  As far as the other named account is concerned, the evidence must have been convincing enough for you to go to the trouble of performing a check user (something that I have noticed does not happen if the evidence is not convincing).  The Andy Dingley report was clearly more disruptive, but no block of the filer was enacted.  -185.69.144.196 (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The above report against me was filed in retaliation for the report I filed, not the other way around. Burninthruthesky (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, Andy Dingley suggested himself I file a separate SPI rather than continue to raise evidence which may implicate him. Is that correct? Burninthruthesky (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, of course it's not correct – so little of what you write ever is. A request that you stop making unactionable allegations that someone is socking, or else actually file an SPI, is hardly an invitation to do so. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The two named accounts are ❌. I have blocked the filer, 86.153.133.193, for 72 hours for the disruptive filing. I have deleted the retaliatory and baseless Sockpuppet investigations/Andy Dingley and given an "only warning" to Burninthruthesky for its filing. Closing with no other actions.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)