Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/O Fenian/Archive

Report date July 10 2009, 17:33 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by The Inquisador

They usually edit the same accounts. Same IP address!! The Inquisador (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Frivolous. Can The Inquisador be blocked as an obvious sockpuppet of Historian19 please? O Fenian (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
 * Actually, Inquisador is more likely User:James Tucton's, as attacking MArek69 is his main MO (note Marek69 is listed first). I've already blocked him after he Plaxico'd at RFPP asking for Marek's SPI page to be unprotected. -  Jeremy  ( v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses! ) 01:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users

Disruptive report by a blocked sockpuppet. -- Kanonkas : Talk  01:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions

Evidence submitted by Gaius Octavius Princeps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/139.184.30.132 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/O_Fenian


 * I.P: 139.184.30.132 and User: O Fenian are co-ordinated in their edits of Unite Against Fascism. The timings all indicate that both O Fenian and the anon IP editor are the same person, simply logging in and out but being careful so as to not directly edit the same article.

IP editor makes the edit and User O Fenian responds on behalf of IP editor minutes later. O Fenian and the IP editor edits always appear one after another. Except that O Fenians will be defending the IP editor, asking for blocks and bans on other users who edit or remove the anon IP edits.

For example: The IP anon repeatedly reverts the article Unite Against Fascism, removes info/adds info, a user asks for temporary protection, User: O Fenian then defends the anon IP and attacks the requesting user. The timings all indicate that both O Fenian and the anon IP editor are the same person, simply logging in and out but being careful so as to not directly edit the same article in order to look like a neutral observer is intervening. I therfore ask for a check on this identity. Thank you.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 19:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * ❌ - A l is o n  ❤ 01:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

05 January 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

These 3 users seem to exist purely to play the numbers game and agree with each other. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Belfast&action=historysubmit&diff=404057066&oldid=404056051 - Here we see support for O_Fenian from NC and Bj within 8 minutes! I think it is worth checking. Afterlife10 (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

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

It would appear to be the same trolling accusation as this case or the deleted Sockpuppet investigations/Bjmullan. Please see if the filing party is also a sockpuppet of or  like before. O Fenian (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like nothing more than a retaliatory fishing expedition because of this SPI involving proposer RashersTierney (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Its worth checking. If its not sockpuppetry, then its canvasing.Afterlife10 (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/O_Fenian&oldid=387708749 - Can this case be re-opened. Some more compeling evidence. Afterlife10 (talk) 00:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

If only to clear any doubts, run a CU. GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Afterlife10 is obviously a sock. What kind of "new" user reopens a sockpuppet case that was created by a spam account? JDDJS (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

There is already an SPI against me. It was O_Fenian who brought the old SPI to my attention but a CU had not been run. So its worth checking.Afterlife10 (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Still seems like WP:DUCK to me. Trying to attack your accuser usually means your guilty. And unless that it turns out O Fenian was socking (which is very unlikely) I recommend this page be fully protected due to the trolls constantly editing it.JDDJS (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

If you say so. Time will tell. But the evidence i have submitted is pretty compelling. You only have to check the history here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Belfast&action=history. NC makes a revert to spare O_Fenian a 3revision warning. Afterlife10 (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

O_Fenian has been block for edit warring in the past, even after the socks were created. JDDJS (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I'm sorry, I don't find the evidence very compelling. If there is no other evidence, I will close this case. Elockid  ( Talk ) 01:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur with Elockid, so I'm closing. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I was pretty close to closing too per . But I know this is going to come up again and again and again either way. Let me just say that all these accounts are ❌ to each other. We're done - A l is o n  ❤ 04:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)