Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IrishToTheCore/Archive

25 November 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

user:IrishToTheCore showed up today and with their second ever edit (the first was to place an Irish flag on their userpage) started a "Formal Pave Move Request", with correctly formatted template, etc. to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, proposing a move of Ireland to Ireland (island) and Republic of Ireland to Ireland. This is a controversial area, and the arbcom imposed 2-year moratorium on page moves for the Ireland articles expired in September (see Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names). Pretty much since then there has been discussion at WT:IECOLL and elsewhere about moving the names again, and for the past couple of weeks at least there has been much discussion around a different move (Republic of Ireland to Ireland (state)), that is finally starting to get somewhere towards a consensus on how (or if) to proceed. On the 22nd November, an anonymous contributor with IPs that geolocate to Perth, Western Australia, showed up quoting Irish law to the discussion with no apparent context. The following day, they expand a little saying that proposing that the state be at a title other than "Ireland" is breaking an Irish law regulating hate speech ("Prohibition of Incitement To Hatred Act, 1989"). Then today user:IrishToTheCore shows up and proposes a move of the article with the reasoning that "The country is called Ireland, it has the right to be called by the correct name. ". The circumstantial evidence is enough to suggest they are the same person. It is extremely suspect though that a new user would act in this manner, and so it's almost inconceivable that this isn't the sock of a user intimately familiar with the Ireland article names before. It's just not clear who the sockmaster is. Thryduulf (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Question following decline So what do we do here to identify who the sockmaster is? There was two parts to this request and the whole thing appears to have been declined on the basis of the first part only. Thryduulf (talk) 20:40, 25 November 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

 * - CU won't connect an account to IPs. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no abuse of accounts here per se. It seems to me that this person started out by editing anonymously and then decided to get an account. The IPs are all on the same ISP (and geolocate to exactly the same area) so my assumption there is that the ISP hands out dynamic IPs. Monitor this situation, but I'm closing with no action taken. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)