Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shamshamster1234/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

As per the ANI thread I opened some time ago, the sock master behind and any number of other profiles (including those listed above), continues to abuse multiple profiles to create articles on himself and members of his family. Contrary to any number of guidelines and riding roughshod over previous AfDs. While the above ANI thread covers some of it, in terms of drawing a line between the first and this most recent sock, I would simply note that:
 * created an article on himself in Jun 2019 (the subject of an AfD discussion at Articles for deletion/Tadgh Quill shortly thereafter). (re)created an article on the same subject in Oct 2020. First in the main article namespace. Now moved to Draft:Tadgh Quill-Manley. For lack of refs/evidence of notability.
 * created an article on his great-grandmother in Jun 2019 (the subject of an AfD discussion at Articles for deletion/Maud Mitchell shortly thereafter). (re)created an article on the same subject in Nov 2020. In the main article namespace. Now the subject of another AfD at Articles for deletion/Maud Mitchell (2nd nomination).
 * created an article on his great-grandfather in Sep 2019 (the subject of an AfD discussion at Articles for deletion/Herbert 'Sean' Mitchell shortly thereafter). (re)created an article on the same subject in Nov 2020. In the main article namespace at Herbert Mitchell (IRA General Commandant). Now the subject of a speedy G4 request.

I will not get into all the nonsense in between (in which the author created articles on his mother, grandmother, former family home, and used multiple profiles to do so). Suffice to say that there is a very clear link between the editing patterns of Shamshamster1234 and this latest Diddlydee123 sock. Previously I would have noted that WP:MINORS and WP:YOUNG might apply. But I do not think that this is the case any longer. Guliolopez (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

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

I've been watching this user's edits for a while and it's suffice to say the duck test has been passed. For what it's worth, you may also want to add which you previously voiced your concerns of being a sockpuppet given its similar editing patterns. ser! (let's discuss it). 14:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I'd forgotten that one. In honesty its not especially easy to keep track of the many profiles and IPs the editor has used. Some are obvious. Like:
 * This edit on 25 Sep 2020 by which, among other things, added the following text: "In 1955, a journalist by the name of D.J.M in The Cork Examiner said that Quill's farming outlook "could make the country a rich and happy land, if there was a more general acceptance and application of his ideas" at the time."
 * And this on 9 Nov 2020 by which, amid other changes, added the exact same text: "In 1955, a journalist by the name of D.J.M in The Cork Examiner said that Quill's farming outlook "could make the country a rich and happy land, if there was a more general acceptance and application of his ideas" at the time."
 * Others include the astonishing WP:REFSPAM which the editor perpetuated through his profile. In which the editor peppered his own self-published book across umpteen articles: //////. Clearly linking the work's author with the editor.
 * On the other hand, a (non-admin) reviewer would likely have to be somewhat familiar with the historic patterns (and overlapping circle of articles) to recognise as a SOCK. But it, undoubtedly, is another of the editor's many profiles.
 * Anyway, thanks for the note, while I haven't updated the original SPI entry, if the clerk or patrolling admin were to expand the review scope to include , then I'd support that. Guliolopez (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No bother at all. Yeah, there's a bizarre amount of accounts being used at multiple times here and it's easy to forget one! This profile is far more inconspicuous with the editing and refbombing. ser! (let's discuss it). 17:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for picking this up and for following-up. In terms of the profile, and as per my note above, the main indicators are the overlapping circle of articles. And, in particular, the warring on the Holly Cairns article. The subject of which is a politician. With whom, according to his own self-penned autobiography, the socking author claims an association. There is no "cut and dried" evidence that I can highlight. While I have no doubt that a CheckUser would confirm a connection, I don't think we need to take that step. As the socking user will likely abandon that profile eventually anyway. If not, I'm happy to reopen SPI with a CheckUser request (if needed). Guliolopez (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I've blocked and tagged all except . Could I have some more evidence on that one please? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Closing without action against TeddyMcCarthy per Guliolopez's comment above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

is another profile (one of many) associated with. While it may be less obvious from this latest profile's (as yet limited) activities on the EN Wikipedia project, the profile's actions 'globally' make it clear. Just picking the more obvious QUACKs: The over-lapping use of the same IPs, the "shift" (of IP-hopping patterns) to the draft space, and general use of throw-away accounts all point to the same attempts to avoid scrutiny as before. I have not opened SPIs on the other profiles used/abused by the user (since the last Dec 2020 SPI), but the recent blatant COPYVIO issues means I have (sigh) felt compelled to put time into opening another. Despite umpteen chances is ever clear that user is not interested in upholding community norms.Guliolopez (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Previous sock added this "Power is a drug ... it suits me" quote to the Alan Kelly WP article. Latest sock  added the same quote to the Alan Kelly WQ entry.
 * Previous sock added this image of Timothy Quill to COMMONS (since deleted for copyright issues). Latest sock  added a similar image of Timothy Quill to COMMONS (also eligible for deletion for copyright issues).
 * Previous sock (and other profiles abused by user) relied excessively on archive.irishnewsarchive.com as a source for additions (often including including every small-ad/letter-to-editor/passing-mention in doing so; ). Latest sock  is doing the same thing
 * Previous sock added references to a small local independent housing association (0 employees, <19 volunteers) to several articles (including own draft auto-bio). Latest sock  has now created an article on same non-notable organisation (since tagged for speedy as COPYVIO.)
 * Note; In the weeks since I opened this SPI, the editor has continued to create and hop-around various accounts. Including, just as an example, . Which, across several edits, the editor (by reference to the blocking policy in ed-summs) acknowledged was being used to evade a block. When prompted that the way to constructively edit following a block was to seek an unblock, the editor made a malformed unblock request on the latest sock. Before then making an unblock request on one of his many other/intermediate socks. In which he effectively confirmed that and  are being operated by the same person. I personally agree with 's preliminary response to the unblock request (that sustained breach of related guidelines isn't behaviour that demonstrates much respect for community norms) and do not agree that the editor's older socks should be unblocked. But, at least, before any action in that area can be considered, all of these socks should be "tied together" in the SPI log. So that any admin (assessing the more recent unblock request) can consider the full context of more recent EVADE behaviours. Guliolopez (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2021 (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

 * Looks like bagged the reported accounts. Tagged, closing. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)