Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Reverend Colman Trembley/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( original case name)


 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

RealDave.Dunford, NEWDave.Dunford, and the /64 all have the same habit of linking common terms, and adding hoax content about a "William Hale", e.g.  and.

Reverend Colman Trembley is editing the same pages as the above, often within minutes, and also linking common terms, but doesn't seem to be adding hoax content and even reverted NewDaveDunford once. Not sure what the connection is. Oh I see. reverted RCT here, and the other accounts were made to troll him.

I keep finding more accounts and this pattern of disruption goes back to 2020, so I think it's worth a CU check for any more sleepers.

The IP and /64 are DUCKs and don't need CU. Not sure how stable the IPv4 is, but the IPv6 has been at it for about a week.Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2022 (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

 * RCT's very first edit was a William Hale hoax, so this is a pretty clear duck. :
 * Please indef Reverend Colman Trembley as a suspected sock of LordBronSugar
 * Concurrently, as the number of parallel accounts here suggests there may be others we've missed. Courtesy ping  as he's already blocked two of these.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 23:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just a bunch of stupid shit, a total waste of time. Drmies (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The rest is . . -- Amanda (she/her)  00:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just a bunch of stupid shit, a total waste of time. Drmies (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The rest is . . -- Amanda (she/her)  00:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The rest is . . -- Amanda (she/her)  00:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The rest is . . -- Amanda (she/her)  00:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The rest is . . -- Amanda (she/her)  00:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The rest is . . -- Amanda (she/her)  00:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The rest is . . -- Amanda (she/her)  00:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * for the indef of Reverend Colman Trembley requested above (which the CU evidence hasn't confirmed but hasn't called into question either), as well as indefs of MikeTingFoodSpecialist and Dacid.Dunford. The behavioral evidence available for those two leaves no reason to doubt CU. Action no longer needed on the IPs: one already blocked, one stale. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 21:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Moved, blocked, tagged, closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 09:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Pro forma, see below. --Blablubbs (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2022 (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

 * Got an email from asking about the connection between these two; I'm convinced they are both Trembley based on, usernames, and the interaction pattern of returning to the talk pages of blocked socks – speaking of which, I have also given  another two-month hardblock since activity picked back up after a recent CU block by  expired. Accounts (re-), closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * - I too got an e-mail - I'm reopening this, there's at least one more account, give me a minute... Girth Summit  (blether)  15:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * OK - the two accounts listed above are ✅ to one another, to several of the socks in the cases from January, and to a bunch of blocked accounts with childish 'knob gag' usernames. The only one I found that wasn't already blocked was, which looks like a throaway VOA and is now blocked. Re-closing. Girth Summit  (blether)  15:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Same pattern of spurious-looking edits about a character named "William Hale" - see, , ,. Same "knob gag"-type username as User:Phil.Mcrackin123 (another suspected sock). Unconvincing claims of innocence at Talk:Coal_Aston, Talk:Jessop Hospital and User talk:Dave.Dunford. Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC) Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Sad it has come to this ! What even is a sock puppet ? I declare my innocence, I saw what I thought was real information and uploaded it and for this I am sorry, I am not affiliated to anyone else, nor do I know what this even is ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike.Dickard (talk • contribs) 18:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked and tagged the named account. The IP has made only one edit. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Next verse, same as the first. Continued attempts to slip something about William Hale into local articles. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I don't do these often - there seems to be a fair few of these socks in the drawer each time this comes up, so worth a CU perhaps. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

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

I made an edit of said ‘William Hale’ with relevant literature referenced. I was not attempting to be malicious and share no connections to any of these other individuals who have trolled these Wikipedia pages. I have noticed the issues arise and being a local wished to clarify the problems which have arisen.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked and tagged. Although the filer should have explained why he requested a CU, I'm leaving it intact for a clerk or checkuser to address. Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * - worth a check for other accounts. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 21:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * - -- RoySmith (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't do any better than what we've already got from behavior alone, and the nature of the data dissuaded me from attempting a sleeper check. Closing. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)