Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PorridgeGobbler/Archive

28 January 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

He originally used ip User:94.14.78.108 and was blocked for disruption. He created User:PorridgeGobbler and was blocked for sock puppetry. As part of his unblock he was told not to use any other account. Yesterday User:94.2.8.11 appeared and began using personal attacks with same language and opinion This was taken to ANI where he openly admitted he was User:PorridgeGobbler.    Now a user who created an account after Porridge commented on the Main Project page today saying. I have never interacted with him at any point so he wouldn't know that. Also he commented this porridge also made comments re irish football and fully pro. The ips are his despite different origin locations as the behaviour in each plus his admition at ANI show this. User:Murry1975 may not be 100% but my suspicions have been raised he also commented on the validity of the ANI which the ip had done at ANI see full any [.]. Given the ip does not deny socking a check user is appropriate to ascertain if any other accounts have been created. [[User:Edinburgh Wanderer| Edinburgh ]] Wanderer  15:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to note once more i have no proof other than observed comments and familiarity in discussion that Murry is a sock. Which is why i apologise if he isn't. But given suspicion and Latest Ip User:94.2.8.11 admission that he is porridge he advises he has valid reasons for editing logged out but he was told as part of unblock not to. He quoted loads of wiki policy which is unlikely a new editor would have an indepth Knowledge of    this and from previous discussions led me to belief he has other accounts i appreciate that due to hopping this may not find anything but it should be checked. Once again I'm sorry if Murry isn't and I'm more than willing to hold my hand up if he isn't which is probably the case but the others are. Edinburgh   Wanderer  22:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I am withdrawing my claim against Murry as i agree its not him. I have formally apologised to him. The rest of the ip's still stand. Edinburgh  Wanderer  23:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Previous Anis 12 3 .This shows the history of the case and also shows some of the terms he use which are unusual for an editor who has so little history. Edinburgh  Wanderer  00:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Am I meant to be informed of this?Murry1975 (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You were informed very clearly of the ANI which you have already advised me you are aware of where it clearly says an SPI should be filled it also links straight to this. Edinburgh  Wanderer  21:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh right you do think I am a sock of, going by the IPs above either, a Scotish or English based editor? lol. And is this just because I actually stated facts that were counter to your view on a thread? It is very uncivil of you to do so. This is no more than fishing against me on your part. The page I was informed of was an ANI you still needed to inform me not let me find out by reading a talkpage . For your info the above IP's are all Skybroadband UK based, the reviewing Admin will only need to check my ISP and location to remove me from the list.Murry1975 (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no need to react like this as far as I'm concerned you may easily not be but all the rest certainly are and as there may be other accounts. I don't care about where you live in fact i couldn't care less where any other editor lives but Porridge did he made attacks constantly towards me and others. As already said at ANI his Ips geolocate all over the place but he admits they are his and is a clear hopper as was commented by the previous blocking admin I cannot risk there being someone else involved. As i have clearly said my suspicions were raised because you appeared to say you have had dealings with me in the past. You haven't and 2 you brought up ireland which porridge did and three you had no history of editing that page which makes me think why this page and discussion in a field you don't edit. That is reasonable suspicion as i will not enteract with someone who may start the harassment back up its a risk i am not willing to take. I have already said I'm sorry if you have been dragged into something you are not involved in but i cannot risk being harassed as i already explained to the admin who directed me to file this. its uo to the case clerks here to decide any further. You can continue to discuss at the project with anyone else who will speak to you about it but given your reaction it won't be me. Edinburgh  Wanderer  21:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Bad faith call on your part. I never said I had dealings with you. Dont misrepresent something to make your point thats also uncivil.Murry1975 (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your comment was uncivil to me saying I'm always Huffy in the past and should retract that. I will never put up with being harassed and when i asked you to explain your comment which you did not then we wouldn't be here. I asked you to address that and you never. It was only then i considered giving these comments that i had to include you. Once again for the last time I'm sorry if you are not and it may all be coincidence but if you had been the subject of this back then you would not take any more chances. I expect this to not to find much given the locate differences but as he openly admits the rest other than yours is his its justified in my opinion a clerk may disagree. Edinburgh  Wanderer  21:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I explained it twice "You havent as far as I am aware. My advice earlier to you was based on what I have read. What part have I qouted that worries you?" and "As for my advice on your response above, as a person not envolved I found the language you used as sharp as the language used against you, and from what I read this is your reaction response. Yes we all can be snappy back but raising an ANI about something and doing it yourself?", I find your reasoning and battlefield mentality a very poor way of working on here. Now please let the admin run this.Murry1975 (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That was not an explanation at all there is nothing in that discussion at all that would lead you to believe this comment normally you get all huffy when personal remarks are made towards you, so I presume you are going to strike that?. So all you had to do was explain where you read that still cant see it I have never ever attacked any other editor nor have i attacked any users nationality so you clearly need to explain that comment. Comments like this I find your reasoning and battlefield mentality  isn't helping Edinburgh   Wanderer  22:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * EdWand can you show me where PorridgeGobbler mentioned Irish or Ireland, I have just gone through his contribs and cant find any mention of it.Murry1975 (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no point in debating this any further I've fully explained my reasons. You say you aren't Porridge i have no reason to suspect other than your original comments and over familiarness which i still cant see where you got from. Its fair to see this isn't helping you say i have a battleground mentality well I'm drawing further debate to a close with me to avoid displaying that mentality as it dooes not exist normally i am extremely upset that porridge is back displaying the same behaviour as 5 months ago that is why this is happening. there is no need for you or me to continue this debate we are just prolonging this tense argument. Porridge caused a lot of torment for a lot of users. I personally see no point in you or i causing this any further to each other. The clerk will in all likely hood clear you as I'm assuming good faith in your responses here and except its likely you are not. But to be honest if you had answered the original question about where you have seen info about me from the past then i would of ignored the other hints i have re read the page several times and it wasn't from there yes maybe somewhere else but all you had to do was answer. Given not all his ips are linked here he will have used others therefore as I've detailed above he may have other accounts not just Ips. As i say I'm assuming good faith here but even when you are discounted a check is required for all the others. I suggest we both leave this SPI alone and let the clerks decide what to do. They may decide even his admittance of using several accounts is not enough  Edinburgh   Wanderer  23:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You are meant to AGF before you accuse someone of being a sock. Not when you relise that you made a boo-boo.Murry1975 (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I assumed good faith which is why i asked you to explain your comments. You asked why i had suspicions i explained you still didn't provide answers. Given the current situation i had no choice but to include you. Im not seeing any boo-boo here which is a very stupid comment to make I'm not 5. You haven't explained which i don't understand however I'm willing to accept you aren't but once again if you explained you wouldn't of been included. So the good faith couldn't extend further when you didn't show me it. Edinburgh  Wanderer  00:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I explained my comment twice, if it was not what you wanted to read that is not my fault. So I am here becuase my answers were not what you wanted "You haven't explained which i don't understand however I'm willing to accept you aren't but once again if you explained you wouldn't of been included.". Pathetic. Yes I know thats not AGF comment.Murry1975 (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Enough is Enough you never explained in any way shape or form saying I've read isn't an explanation at all when there was nothing in that disscusion to get that from. I would have listened to any explanation but you didn't give one. You are taking this too far. If you want to comment further that's your choice but stop having a go it's not on. That's not pathetic it's the total truth. Edinburgh   Wanderer  01:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Listen bud I am here because of you not me. I answered your question. Twice. It is apparent you didnt like the answers and that is why I am here. You havent answered where gobbler mentions either Irish or Ireland, which you stated was one of the reasons why I am here. But he didnt, please check . I understand that this editor may have given you hassle, right now you are giving me hassle. I am not taking anything too far, I am explaining myself, you have not.Murry1975 (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * PS I am not having a go. If I was I admit I would not be civil for parts of it, but that kind of reaction isnt a good way of work with others.Murry1975 (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all I'm not your bud secondly you never explained anything that's a joke. There is no explanation there at all. P.s I'm not having a go that's exactly what you are. You are deliberately trying to get a reaction at every opportunity you don't answer questions you just have a go. And guess what that's what's happening. Ive been around a lot longer than you and Done a hell of a lot of collaborative work including setting up task forces to work together with other users. That clearly shows I work well with people. I have had enough of this from you. You may not be porridge but this behaviour isn't right at all. I'm formally asking you politely to stay away from me that means no interaction. I've had enough of people attacking me and will no longer accept it from anyone. I've said enough is enough and leave for the admins to observe but you won't you just goad me I'm sorry but this stops now. Edinburgh   Wanderer  01:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to get a reaction from you, you have not explained yourself and dismissed all my answers. You dont want to interact with me that is fine, but we may cross paths again on a football article and I would expect to be threated with more good faith than you have afforded at this time. I am not having a go. Again I will ask where did the gobbler mention Ireland or Irish? As this is one of your points for having me here. It was a point you stated above and on my talk page. Thats not having a go, it is very relivant to me bieng on here. Yet there is no comment from the gobbler about such. You have been around longer yes and you do contribute well to articles yes, you are more experienced than I yes. This has nothing to do with any of that. I have replied to your questions first you state that I wouldnt know that by the talkpage and then that I didnt give an answer and then back and forth. I just want one answer. Where did the gobbler use the Ireland or Irish comment? I have read over his contribs, linked above in my comment and they are no-where.Murry1975 (talk) 02:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have made it very clear I will never interact with you on any page again our paths will not crosss and I won't treat you like anything because you have never treated me respectively.Any comment you make will be ignored totally You are being tottally antagonistic if you had bothered to read any of the discussions you were pointed to you would know where it came from. You never answered my question so quess what go find it out for yourself. You just don't give a care to anything other than yourself. You have totally stollen this SPi from what its about an editor who is socking to disrupt. You are really something. I've worked so hard here but I've had enough of editors who take cheap shots. Do you not think I looked closely at this before I added you I looked through all your edits to see simmiarity I expected to find nothing but found you had never come near this subject ever that on top of everything else put you in the frame. In fact if I had known you would behave like this it would of made my view even stronger. Your only purpose here all along has been to get a reaction and you have. I read your reply it had nothing to explain your comment in anyway shape or form you had plenty of time to explain yourself but never. You should think what your doing to other editors mental well being before you start because you are pushing me over the edge.  Edinburgh   Wanderer  02:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I havent stolen anything. I have answered your questions. I care why the hell I am here. I havent taken cheap shots. Just because I hadnt edited in an area doent mean I should forever avoid it. I am acting like I want to know why I am here, nothing more. I dont want a reaction I want an answer that is factual not based on anything else. I was giving you advice in my reply. I wish no harm to anyones mental well being, but you should bare in mind mine aswell. I dont wish to push you over the edge. You are a good editor I have read you input, but having me here is a result of something that another editor done and I do feel that it is unjustified. If you where in my shoes and this happened you what would you do? Ask why. Why would we ask this? Because we would know we shouldnt be here. Thats all I have done. If I was to have a go at you I wouldnt be polite, but two things 1- I dont want to have a go at you and 2- it would achieve nothing but increase both of our unease at being here.Murry1975 (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well you have got what you wanted i am retiring I've had enough you have taken pot shot after pot shot. You seriously cant see whats wrong here. The above editor has used multiple accounts to harass me and what you are doing here is condoning it. We'll you have your way i hope you are very proud of yourself. Edinburgh   Wanderer  02:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have not condoned it and would never. I have not taken any pot shots. If you retire that is your decision, as I have stated above you are a good editor, but to implicate me in that decision is not a nice comment.Murry1975 (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * you are the sole reason for this. I have asked an admin to enforce me not being able to edit. Its totally your fault you have been uncivil from your first comment to me. Edinburgh   Wanderer  03:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not the sole reason for this, or any reason. As I stated before my opinion of you is that you are a good editor and have contributed well to articles, all I have asked for is the evidence why you brought me to the ANI and here. That is all.Murry1975 (talk) 03:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I reject this investigation. Edinburgh Wanderer has repeatedly been told that there is nothing wrong with contributing by IP and that there are legitimate reasons for doing so. I do not accept that I used all the IPs below. Those which I did use were never used concurrently and no deception was intended, or has been alleged by any other user. Edinburgh Wanderer has been forum shopping and various other clumsy techniques to get users who disagree with him blocked. For an experienced editor, there is a worrying refusal to focus on content or use dispute resolution properly. This behaviour is hostile and I believe this investigation is calculated to intimidate or bring about my WP:OUTING. I confirm I have no relation whatever to Murry and feel embarrassed that Murry has been subjected to the same disruptive behaviour that I have. I request that this SPI be closed and that appropriate action be taken against Edinburgh Wanderer. PorridgeGobbler (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all porridge at the ANI i was directed to file this so no forum shopping two. The above IPS were linked at the time of your blocking for socking to disrupt. The link above clearly shows you admitting use of the new one. Murry may not be involved but you coming along now and disputing dosent hold up to scrutiny. Edinburgh   Wanderer  19:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Note: things aren't going very well here, and are veering further and further from productive. I've collapsed much of the section above as particularly unproductive. At EW's request, I've set his Wikibreak Enforcer for 3 months (unless he emails me he wants it taken off sooner).

I have no opinion on how to dispose of this case, but IMHO Murray1975 should not be a part of it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed Murry. As to the IPs, only 94.2.8.11 has edited in the past few months, so I've blocked it for a week. I'm going to go on extremely good faith that Porridge just didn't log in, but relist if necessary. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've always thought this isn't the only account so a check user I felt would be appropriate given he has previously been blocked for socking however that is fine. If more accounts come up over time would it be appropriate then. Edinburgh   Wanderer  11:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Without sufficient evidence, there's not much reason to do a CU. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

06 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

This seems like a clear case of DUCK to me but I am seeking formal confrirmation (in spirit of AGF, and also because I am INVOLVED). PorridgeGobbler was a SPA who was blocked for disruptive editing and socking; all his IPs located to various large towns and cities across Northern England (Yorkshire mainly, but also Manchester). His sole area of concern was WP:FPL, specifically the Scottish leagues. After over a year, a number of IPs (which all geolocate to Northern England) have appeared and are editing at WP:FPL, specifically the Scottish leagues. Seeing a link here? As said above, because I am INVOLVED in the discussion I am unwilling to block/revert etc., and it would be useful to search for any sleepers etc. GiantSnowman 11:56, 6 April 2013 (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 will not connect accounts to IP addresses except in cases of extreme abuse. Rschen7754 19:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Will it link the IPs at least though? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiantSnowman (talk • contribs)
 * No. Please read wmf:Privacy policy and the instructions for this page. --Rschen7754 19:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the patronising tone, super helpful. GiantSnowman 19:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Whilst i understand a checkuser cant identify the ips to the account how else are we supposed to report situations like this, socking is socking after all and does need dealt with even if its on visual duckish evidence alone. The user & ip's is always good at quoting policies and not neccesarly the right ones i may add. This has always led me to believe that this is not a new user at all and likely has held another account at some point or another, so a checkuser to make sure there are no sleepers would of been a good step to eradicate that once and for all. However a slight bit more guidance from whatever admin reviews this would be great as i have a feeling this is going to keep occurring every few months. Blethering  Scot  21:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A decline basically refers the case to an admin who will look on behavior analysis alone. CUs cannot perform a CU to connect IPs to accounts like this, or they run a very strong risk of losing access to the CU tool. This is per the privacy policy set by the WMF board, and is completely out of our control. --Rschen7754 02:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The first three IPs listed all removed the Scottish First Division from the fully professional leagues' list, which is something that PorridgeGobbler seems to have argued for earlier. 176.253.21.62 responds on behalf of 2.122.166.254 ; 90.205.197.52 responds on behalf of 176.253.108.55 . Also, I don't remember seeing anyone else use "rp" as an abbreviation for "response" or "reply" . As noted by the OP, all addresses geolocate to the same place.
 * I think there's enough evidence that these are all PorridgeGobbler, although considering how often he changes IP it's probably of no use to block them now. Jafeluv (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to close this. If he returns and the edits are sufficiently disruptive I would recommend you request page semi-protection (but feel of course free to re-open!). Amalthea 12:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * IPs mentioned haven't edited recently, and I don't see other recent anon edits at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues
 * Regarding use of CU here, PorridgeGobbler hasn't edited in over a year so we simply have no CU data to compare with. Also, the CU tool is a very limited tool: In most cases we just don't have the data to connect anon edits over a range of IPs with any kind of certainty. It's a technical limitation, not a policy restriction -- with sufficient disruption I can absolutely do what's necessary (&larr; two judgement calls in that phrase).
 * However, the connection is not really in question here so CU doesn't seem necessary, Jafeluv has summarized some evidence above that makes connection of IPs with each other and PorridgeGobbler appear pretty certain.
 * Also like Jafeluv said though, I see no possibility for IP blocks here. His IP is dynamic, and the ranges are much too wide and busy.