Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richrakh/Archive

29 November 2010

 * 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 " ~ "''

See discussion at AN/I. Richrakh has been working on three list articles I submitted to AfD. Richrakh voted keep at the three AfDs, posting incorrectly at the top of the discussion instead of at the bottom in order. Shortly thereafter, Leeroy10, an obvious sock, showed up to vote keep at all three, also posting incorrectly at the top exactly the same way Richrakh did. Appears to be an attempt to votestack. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I note that Richrakh has also openly canvassed for support in the AfDs here . - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:25, 29 November 2010 (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

 * On ANI, MuZemike performed the check and showed that the two accounts are . —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I ran a check independent of, my results are more borderline . The two accounts do geolocate to the same area. Tiptoety  talk 19:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I'm going to close this for now based on inaction. The sock hasn't edited in a few days, but please relist if it becomes active again. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

07 August 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

All four accounts appear to be opinon stacking at a request for comment at Talk:List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes, all presenting reinforcing opinions (I am also involved in this discussion).

All four accounts are focused on two disparate topics: US politics, particularly list entries on polical scandals (such as the aforementioned List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes) and World War Two history, particulary the invasion of France. While sharing two dissimilar interests is not enough to suspect sockpuppetry, the overall pattern (including account creation dates, accounts editing pages one after another, or editing the same paragraph) strongly suggests that these are all the same person. The evidence is largely circumstantial, but there is simply too much of it to pass off as coincidence.

Requesting CheckUser since these were all clearly created as sock accounts; none of them is the master. There is also no reason to think there are not more accounts, although I have looked through the political scandal list entries pretty carefully. The only other relevant account I've found is, who is possibly the master: this is the main contributor to the list entries and the creator of List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes. Richrakh has very few WW2 edits, however, but at least one (to Battle of Hannut) is intermingled with edits from the sock accounts. Some may pass this off as coincidence.

I apologize for the length of the report, there is no other way to establish the pattern of related edits.

The accounts were made in two batches. The first batch is and, created within two hours of each other on Nov 20, 2010. Both start out making perfunctory comments on their user and talk pages immediately after creation, then move on to articlespace.

Both accounts have edits to: James Stewart List_of_state_and_local_political_scandals_in_the_United_States List of federal political scandals in the United States List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes Republican Party (United States) Erwin_Rommel Charles de Gaulle Battle_of_France

The edits are also close together in time (on the order of days or weeks) and sometimes related. So Birdshot9 adds a paragraph to Republican Party (United States), and Logjam42's only edit to the same page is a minor edit to the same paragraph.

Logjam42 makes 4 edits to Battle of France on Dec 11, 2010, Birdshot9 does an additional four edits a month later, two are to the same paragraphs: (Logjam edits to "Early actions", Birdshot's edit), (Logjam's edit to "Allied strength", Birdshot's edit).

Even where these accounts edit different pages their edits are related. Logjam edits Red Tails and Tuskegee Airmen, Birdshot edits The Negro Soldier. Logjam edits Pearl Harbor (film), Birdshot edits Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory.

The second batch of accounts is from January. created January 10, created a day later at the same time of day. Ovr'apint follows the user page / talk page / edit sequence (both are so perfunctory there is no real attempt to appear to be something other than a phony account) and the first article edited is James Stewart, the same as Birdshot9. Both accounts follow the "WW2 + US political scandals" model, with a few edits related to food, an iterest shared by Logjam42 who edited Linguine and Talk:The Best Thing I Ever Ate.

Sitsat makes one article space edit before getting around to the user page + talk page edits, but even that edit fits well inside the Germany vs. France mold.

All four accounts have edits to (partial lists of edits):

List of federal political scandals in the United States (Logjam42 Birdshot9 Sitsat Ovr'apint)

List of state and local political scandals in the United States (Logjam42 Birdshot9 Sitsat Ovr'apint)

List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes (Logjam42 Birdshot9 Sitsat Ovr'apint)

List of federal political sex scandals in the United States (Logjam2 Birdshot9 Sitsat Ovr'apint)

All four accounts except Logjam42 have edited Battle of Hannut: (Ovr'apint Sitsat (the day after Ovr'apint) Birdshot)

All but Sitsat have edited Battle of France: (Logjam42 BirdshotOvr'apint)

All four accounts (as well as Richrakh) often use the edit summary "this reads better" (admittedly not an unusual edit summary):

Logjam42:

Birdshot9:

Sitsat:

Ovr'apint:   

I'll end the evidence here. There is more, but it is all similarly circumstantial; I hope this is enough to proceed with the investigation. Thanks. Hairhorn (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2012 (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

 * Items on their own are very circumstantial, but putting them all together here is convincing. WilliamH (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, compliments for the clear evidence. You were right about them being in two batches. The following accounts are ✅ with each other:
 * The next batch are all ✅ with each other:
 * The next batch are all ✅ with each other:
 * The next batch are all ✅ with each other:
 * The next batch are all ✅ with each other:

Based on their geographical location, and the nature of their edits, I would say it is they are all operated by the same individual. And based on this diff, namely the edit summary, the overlap in topics, and the fact that he is in the same geographic area, I would say it is that  is the master. WilliamH (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  16:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  17:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Moved case to Richrakh.
 * Blocking master 1 week and indeffing and tagging the socks.

03 December 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

At the Richrakh archive, the last 6 were all confirmed as socks of that account. At one may note that every single one of these has edited the same article. At, for each and every account the times of edits are all within a 3 hour period - the same period for each sock. ,, ,  ,  and [.  And, curiously enough, 20 of Glenshiph's 46 edits are to that "article in common" for all eight accounts, and giving the same position as the other seven did.  This is quite beyond coincidence.    Identical positions on the same article in the same words. The prior SPI found the last 6 were indeed socks - the case here only need prove Glenshiph is the same person. [[User:Collect|Collect]] (talk) 23:03, 2 December 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

 * Endorsing check on Glenshiph per behavioral evidence. I've removed the already-blocked accounts as they're in the archives. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * is ✅ to . Both users are to Richrakh, but given behavioral evidence I would say they are  Richrakh.  NativeForeigner Talk 22:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Likely sockpuppets both blocked indef. Closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

25 January 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Shows same preternatural interest in List of American federal politicans convicted of crimes as the prior confirmed socks., etc. as other confirmed socks on same article  Locates to Seattle. Only account to revert repeatedly under each name. Uses similar edit summaries (generally "...ing" as first word). ,, , , [ Socking was apparently confirmed as recently as December 2013, so this is not an unlikely connection. Sockpuppet_investigations/Richrakh/Archive listing eight socks or thereabouts  all in the same basic topic area with same positions. Collect (talk) 14:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Wow. No, I'm not any kind of puppet, and never have been. I simply prefer as a matter of principle to be identified here only by IP. (The nature of the principles in question are not relevant in this investigation.) I've had other IP addresses over the years, which I will not disclose, but I will say these things about my history here: I haven't edited Wikipedia from any other IP address since I began using this one, I've never edited "List of American federal politicans convicted of crimes" or any related article before, I've never been in any kind of edit war before, never had any kind of serious disagreement with another Wikipedia editor (I can't even remember any minor ones), and I've never been in any kind of trouble here. I'm reluctant to say it, but I do believe this is a bad-faith accusation by Collect, since he took a bad position on a fairly trivial question related to that article and then compounded the error with highly inappropriate tactics in the ensuing discussion. Note that he never asked me if I was any kind of puppet or told me he was accusing me here of being one. It seems most likely that he's just grasping at straws, looking for ways to force me out of the discussion, and I trust no one will fall for it. 71.197.166.72 (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and for the record-- I am not, and never have been, Richrakh. :-) 71.197.166.72 (talk) 04:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Your only problem here is that Richrakh and his socks specialized in the precise same place you landed, and used similar edit summaries and made similar edits. Calling this a "bad faith accusation" is quite an unfortunate claim on your part, but others will examine this and determine how strong or weak the evidence is.   Personally, I am batting over 95% on my accusations at SPI as I do not yell "fire!" without what I consider sufficient evidence.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hardly a problem for me, maybe a problem for you. I edited a page that someone else once edited? I have also edited a hundred other pages. I use GERUNDS in my edit summaries? Please. And from my brief perusal of Richrakh's edit history, and my experience with your extraordinary attention to detail, it seems inevitable that you would realize I write nothing like Richrakh did, and am not pursuing the same goals Richrakh was. 71.197.166.72 (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately (and this is a good time to suggest you register a non-IP account) all I can see is under 150 total edits of which a third are on the single page which the sock master Richrakh specialized in.  Cheers -- and I think we will get the lead fixed to where the list becomes sane . Collect (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What you would have seen if you had looked was my commitment to improving Wikipedia through conservative editing of articles based on reliable sources. I admit you wouldn't have seen signs that I have a low tolerance for people violating the letter and spirit of WP:DE, WP:TE, WP:EW, WP:BRD, WP:CON, WP:ROWN, WP:DRNC, WP:OWN, WP:NPA, WP:HAR, and of course WP:DICK, but I guess you've figured that out by now. And no, I'm not going to register an account. In my opinion, the public visibility of account identifiers is the single biggest problem with Wikipedia. 71.197.166.72 (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The primary edits appeared to be a quite a bit battlegroundish, and very much in line with the Richrakh cohort edits. And for some reason I had thought RR was in Seattle area, but that may well be faulty memory - at any rate the IP who appears to acknowledge having significant prior WP experience (and knowledge a host of essays and policies) appears to have settled down a bit.  So I am still uncertain, but not angry at the IP. Collect (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I'm not persuaded. For one thing, the master and known socks make many spelling errors in their edit summaries (not typos), whereas the IP's spelling, from what I can see, is impeccable. I have two questions. First, are the IP's edits problematic? Second, what significance does it have that the IP geolocates to Seattle? In addition, if you have more evidence, please present it. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

. In my view, there's insufficient evidence to block the IP. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)