Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Noelthai/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets

 * }}
 * }}
 * }}
 * }}
 * }}


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

I'm nominating Ballymorey as the puppeteer, as it's the oldest unblocked account I can find deleting referenced content from Jonathan King, but it might not be the oldest. Note that that article has been plagued by sockpuppetry for at least 7 years, by accounts that all seem to know about King's life in intricate and unsourced detail, and obsessively remove referenced content that reflects badly on him: please see also WP:Sockpuppet investigations/jk1944/Archive, WP:Sockpuppet investigations/LudoVicar/Archive, and WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Trfc06/Archive.

Ballymorey's third edit on 16 July after account creation was deletion of referenced content about King's criminal conviction:. Nearly all edits aside from the primary editing to the King article are small grammar corrections to various articles, with the editor evidently hoping to avoid notice as a WP:SPA. After reversion of this and unsourced or poorly-sourced additions to the King article by another editor, the editor discusses minutiae of King's life, but is careful to avoid claiming expertise: " I know no more than you but after reading articles", "As I have said I approached Max Clifford by email, not naming King only naming Denning and The Walton Hop they contacted me the following day and asked if I had any photographic evidence of which I did not" , , etc. Some time later on 4 Dec, after I was directed to the article by STiki after another editor added the word "pedophile" to the lede, I added to the lede (referenced by a WP:RS) that King had been convicted of child sexual abuse, which Ballymorey removed both three hours later with a vague edit summary:. Anon account Special:Contributions/2.97.162.146 appears, makes some minor edits to an unrelated article, removes the dangling ref tag from the lede, makes a minor edit to a third unrelated article , then vanishes. I restore the link and reference on 6 Dec, and Ballymorey again reverts a few hours later, with no edit summary. I restore the referenced claim same day, and then editor NewKingsRoad makes a minor unsourced addition, but refrains from reverting again. In the small hours of the next morning 7 Dec, Acquaduct suddenly ends a long editing break by removing them again, not mentioning why in the edit summary, only mentioning a quote correction far down the page about groupies:. I re-add them, and on the same day remove the reference tag from an important detail about the police investigation of King, which is oddly relegated to a footnote:. From that point on, that sentence also becomes subject to removal by various socks.

On 8 Dec, another editor makes an elf tidy on a ref tag. The next edit is on 10 Dec by Noelthai, removing the child sexual abuse link from the lede, and this time also removing the referenced claims about the police investigation and evidence found, with a bogus edit summary pasted from the previous elf edit:. Noelthai also adds the misleading change, from "In a second trial he was found not guilty..." to "In a second trial he was found not guilty on all charges..." (emphasis mine).

It goes quiet for 2 weeks, then on 24 Dec NewKingsRoad reappears, re-adds the misleading claim of "on all charges", and again removes the referenced detail about photographs found by the police and cited as evidence in the trial, and what they alleged to be King's tactics with the children:. NewKingsRoad then removes the word "sexually" from "sexually assaulted", two very different crimes in English law, again with a bogus edit summary about "grammar and repetition":. This is reverted again.

Next day, 25 Dec, Special:Contributions/62.128.211.247 first edit is yet another removal of the word "sexually", finicky grammar edits, and removal of the referenced details about the police photo findings and King's targetting tactics, complete with taunt edit summary: This IP appears to be from an Iomart VPN. This is reverted by minutes later by editor Ianmacm (not a suspected sock), then immediately deleted again by the same anon VPN editor, with more unsourced bio details also added:. Another revert by Ianmacm minutes later, and another edit-warring deletion:. Same anon editor, just to make absolutely sure that the craved attention is received, posts a random thankyou to the last user talk page I edited, then refactors an unrelated editors' talk at my talk page:. In between this, anon editor makes minor edits to Wayne Brown (footballer, born 1988), then bizarrely complains about reversions to the Wayne Brown article at Ianmacm's user talk page, though the new edits to that article haven't yet been reverted:. Anon editor finishes by complaining at Talk:Jonathan King about undue emphasis on sexual abuse in the article:.

I'm asking for a checkuser because previous ones have turned up so many sleepers, and because of the unusual switch to a VPN IP. Wikishovel (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2016 (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
. Of the four accounts listed, Ballymorey is the newest.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry, you're absolutely right, it is the newest. Got my wires crossed while juggling all those diffs. Thanks. Wikishovel (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The four accounts are ✅. Blocked without tags. Please check the three other SPIs linked to by the filer to see if any accounts are not . If you find any, list them here and relist this for CU. If not, please determine the oldest account of the ones listed here, move the case, and tag the accounts. If you want to merge cases based on behavior, which would be a lot of work, that's up to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's all . Sorry. GABgab 18:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No reason to be sorry. It's what I expected, and I appreciate your verifying it. I realize you cannot merge the cases, but do you think it should be done, including the additional work to make that determination? If you don't (either way is okay with me), please move the case to the oldest account listed here, tag, and close.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. Moved and closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  00:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

In the middle of a discussion at Talk:Jonathan King on whether one of King's songs was performed by Sinatra, this sock's first edit after account creation was to chime in, and also complain about the allegations of sockpuppetry against the now-blocked socks, asking: "By the way why are people interested in the song called fans or friends of the composer?". Sock then asks about the King song on two Sinatra-related pages; with no reply, edits cease. Wikishovel (talk) 14:05, 27 December 2016 (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
✅ and blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Tagged. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  00:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)