Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roscomoner/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Both accounts show interleaved editing on the same sets of articles, including Gateshead (here here), Tynemouth (here and here, four days apart), Oldham (here and here, the next day). Both accounts have spent a lot of time editing to further a point of view violating consensus on what stations on the London Underground are "underground" (full disclosure - I have reverted some of their edits), with example edits here (DB) and here (Roscomoner). A whole group of IPs have also edited to further their claims, all with a similar writing style, some of which ended up blocked for violation of consensus. I've listed some above. In addition, an IP requests an edit here (without actually formally listing an edit request) and ten minutes later DB (who had never edited the London Underground article before) carried it out. Similarly, an IP which had never edited before popped up saying "i agree with this person" to revert an admin's edit within a few hours of it being made. Iridescent and administrator Redrose64 raised sockpuppet concerns last week, but Devonshirebred has continued editing (and carried on feuding) since. Blythwood (talk) 19:45, 3 August 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

 * - We need some stronger evidence of connection between those two accounts. Editing same articles is not really a great evidence unless you can show (with WP:diffs) that they are making similar or coordinated edits. I checked their edits and I found out that some of them are even opposite (vs).   Vanjagenije   (talk)  20:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi . DevonshireBred has almost only ever edited articles that Roscomoner has edited or would later edit. This includes Gateshead, South Shields, Tynemouth (this time DB edited first), Oldham, Lewisham, London Underground and both on the topic of Bow Road tube station (Roscomoner editing it, DB about it). Reverting could just be a change of mind - DB reverted their own edit once. For evidence that they are linked, the interleaving goes both ways: on Tynemouth, DevonshireBred edited first, then Roscomoner four days later. Both accounts have edited heavily on demographic percentages, too. Blythwood (talk) 20:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Just noting that the ipv6 addresses comprise 2a02:c7d:7a06:1000::/64 although I haven't checked the case. NativeForeigner Talk 06:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And now I have checked the users. Behavior is rather compelling. I'd say they are related. No comment with respect to the IPs, of course. NativeForeigner Talk 06:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Admin action needed - With the CU result, the POV and wording similarities, the two accounts are easily connectable. Considering the extensive IPv6 anon editing, I recommend a 4-week block for master Roscomoner and a nondiscretionary indef block for DevonshireBred.
 * Based on the diffs primarily in the second paragraph of the report, and on mw: Help:Range blocks/IPv6, I think the entire 2A02:C7D:7A06:1000::/64 range: (a) belongs to one person, and (b) is connected to Roscomoner. Therefore, I recommend a two-week block of 2A02:C7D:7A06:1000::/64. The length of the block is justified because the range has been used by the same person consistently from May (link for those with the IP range contribs gadget enabled) to as recently as 5 September 2016. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 01:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅. IPv6 /64 range is always assigned to a single user. I blocked it for 3 months, since it was already blocked earlier.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  09:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)