Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hilary T/Archive

Report date April 17 2009, 12:48 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

It's a shame that we have come to this, but &hellip;
 * Evidence submitted by Uncle G (talk)

User:Hilary T has announced, in several diffs, including this, this, this, this, this, and this, xyr intention to begin a campaign of sneaky vandalism using multiple accounts and IP addresses. this edit, this edit, this edit, and in particular this edit, this edit, and this edit, lead me to believe that this is one of possibly many accounts. If this is a sockpuppet, as implied, notice the disruption of creating articles with one account and then nominating them for deletion with another. Unfortunately, the account appears to be doing as promised, too: Adding sneaky vandalism with books cited as sources. Page 26 of that book doesn't talk about colonization at all, and does not support the content added. It is quoting Dr. Vincent A. Smith on trade in the first and second centuries CE on the Chola coast. It agrees with the content added only as far as the first three words: "Ancient Tamil literature". Uncle G (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Uncle G (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Given the intent, expressed in the diffs above, to use multiple accounts and different IP addresses, and given that this has begun after the primary account was blocked, it seems worthwhile ensuring that all sockpuppets, of which there are undoubtedly more than one, are blocked. If there is, contrary to claims, a single IP address here, blocking account creation at that address might be a productive step too. Uncle G (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests
 * to root out possible sock farm. Mayalld (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to ask another clerk to sort out who gets a sock template and archive. Notice that one account is not blocked indef, so don't tag. Syn  ergy 21:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * ✅ = . ✅  =  = . Whether all users are related to one another, that is  – every user shares the same user agent, but with the use of open proxies, I can't make any definitive connections. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See my note.  Syn  ergy 21:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you will want to check if I committed any of my sneaky vandalism with other accounts using this IP. Wuzzit (talk) 06:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Report date April 27 2009, 15:51 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

User:Jemima PD's first four edits were to launch into a GDFL-violations related rant.   These were similar to User:Hilary T's accusations of the same thing.. Both accounts have engaged in what I can only consider wikistalking me, opposing anything I take a stand in in either WP:AFD] or [[WP:RFD, particularly User:Atomic Dodger, who seems to have been custom made for opposing my concerns on RfD.  . This behaviour seems to be a continuation of the behaviour she showed against me on User:Hilary T's own user page. All of these would be in violation of User:Hilary T's indefinite blocking for threats of disruption against the wiki.  Blue  Squadron  Raven  15:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by BlueSquadronRaven


 * In response to the request for more information regarding User:Hilary T's bans: First block . This block was extended due to disruption and sockpuppetry (see block log and Sockpuppet investigations/Hilary T/Archive) until being indefinitely blocked. -- Blue  Squadron  Raven  21:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Blue  Squadron  Raven  15:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * You used the code letter "E". Can you provide a link to evidence of a community ban or sanctions?  Thanks, —  Jake   Wartenberg  21:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Evidence seems good enough for a check. — Jake   Wartenberg  22:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

✅ Jemima PD and Mr E Ghest are Hilary T ✅ Atomic Dodger =  HistoryBridge = BabyWhale, but it is unclear whether they match Hilary T due to proxy use. The contributions may be enlightening, though. Dominic·t 22:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

--Tagged and blocked. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 22:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * All set. Archiving.  —  Jake   Wartenberg  22:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

-

Report date May 5 2009, 20:02 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by BlueSquadronRaven

has already been blocked for sockpuppeting and threats of vandalism  and already has a long history of vandalism through sockpuppets (see Sockpuppet investigations/Hilary T/Archive).

One of 's first edits was at an AfD on bilateral relations, a favourite topic of Hilary T, reaffirming their intent to vandalism. 

also almost immediately went to AfD, this time commenting on an article created by Hilary T, in an apparent continuation of her campaign against me, as it seems unlikely a new editor would have been so quick to zero in on such an article and argue the merits of its sources  or add a rescue template to the article.

admitted to being Hilary T, confessed to being the remaining previously blocked sockpuppets, and reaffirmed their dislike of a group of users and their commitment to vandalizing Wikipedia. . The "Wuzz" sockpuppets were all blocked following discussions at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. even went so far as to vandalize Hilary T's sockpuppet investigations archive page.  Blue Squadron  Raven  20:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Blue  Squadron  Raven  20:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Accounts tagged. Nathan  T (formerly Avruch) 21:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * , Accounts and open proxies blocked. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Report date May 5 2009, 21:44 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

As announced previously, Hilary T is now socking like mad through open proxies. So far I have seen no evidence for the promised sneaky vandalism, but I think it would be prudent to check whether the three accounts above (two of which are already blocked) can be connected to any others.
 * Evidence submitted by Hans Adler (talk)

It would probably be best if a checkuser could keep an eye on the situation permanently, watching all the obvious places and reacting as appropriate. In that case please let me know so I can stop giving Hilary T attention by reporting this user. Hans Adler (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Hans Adler (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

All operating on open proxies. Accounts and proxies blocked. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions