Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sheffno1gunner/Archive

02 February 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

I've had my suspicions since ; after taking a closer look at their edits both here and at Commons, I discovered that both accounts have uploaded the same image claiming it to be their own work. Sheffno1gunner uploaded with the description "Nigel Farage Portrait Shot: Taken against wall of my friends house durring [sic] By-election campaign". This was deleted at Commons as a copyvio on 12 December, Nick Dancer uploaded the same image locally as File:Farage2012Nov.png later that day, also claiming to have taken it themselves outside a friend's house.

Both accounts edit UK election-related articles with a focus on UKIP, and Nick Dancer often supports Sheffno1gunner in disputes. This account's frequent use of exclamation marks is also a habit of Sheffno1gunner, and both accounts tend to attempt to shut down discussions. January ( talk ) 22:15, 2 February 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

 * Obvious sockpuppets are blocked (master for 1 month, sock forever). And thank you for the excellent report. It made my job very easy. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

20 February 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Sheffno1gunner appears to have continued editing as an IP while blocked. The latest has posted on the talk page where the previous socks were most active, saying that the decision to have a 3rd party column which both the socks strongly advocated should not have been reversed because of the sockpuppetry (per previous report, the use of exclaimation marks was a feature of Sheffno1gunner's socks). In this edit summary they seem to be complaining about polls other than YouGov not being included, as did Sheffno1gunner. Another habit in common is quoting WP:STICK at editors who disagree with them, which this earlier IP in the same range did. January ( talk ) 20:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

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

I'm the one who replied in that first instance provided, and I immediately thought it was a sock, again because of that liberal use of the exclamation mark (which he clearly loves). –  Richard  BB  21:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

This comes as no surprise. However, could this user also be a sockpuppet of 08aviee, who had been pushing a pro-UKIP bias on the Opinion polling page? –  Richard  BB  18:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * just for the record, 08aviee and friends are for CU purposes SpitfireTally-ho! 13:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Closing as edits have stopped, if this resumes feel free to readd. --Rschen7754 02:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

06 March 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

The user has been lingering around the Next United Kingdom general election; after the page was put on semi-protection for IP edit warring, he took it to the talk page and then to AN/I. The thing that makes me suspicious of this editor is his frequent use of exclamation marks, which has been one of the more notable things about Sheffno1gunner. Furthermore, he appears to be pushing a pro-UKIP agenda, as Sheffno did. Finally, this would also mean the IP is also in use, given these edits. –  Richard  BB  08:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

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

This is probably stale now. FWIW I agree that this is Sheffno1gunner from the behavioural evidence, but Sheffno1gunner's block had expired by the time these edits were made. Personally I think this user's editing of the same articles logged in and logged out is problematic but it's a matter of opinion whether they actually violated WP:SOCK on this occasion. January ( talk ) 16:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, these IPs were both editing throughout the duration of Sheffno1gunner's block. If we assume that they are in fact Sheffno1gunner - and it certainly looks that way from the behavioural evidence - then this was a violation of WP:SOCK through block evasion. I think blocks are in order, but I'm going to hold off for a day or so to allow others to comment. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 12:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There's now an ANI discussion at WP:ANI. January  ( talk ) 12:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sheffno1gunner now seems to be presenting themselves as three different people. The 81 IP has joined a discussion claiming not to be them, but using exclamation marks in the same style as Sheffno1gunner. , which is in the same range as the IPs I reported on 20 February, is also defending Sheffno1gunner at ANI . January  ( talk ) 21:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * per and the enwp policy CHECKUSER, checkusers generally will not disclose links between IP addresses and accounts. Will need to be decided on behavioural evidence. SpitfireTally-ho! 12:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've blocked Sheffno1gunner for 2 months based on the behavioural evidence. 81.149.185.174 and 213.120.148.60 are blocked for a month each, and 130.88.115.61 is blocked for 2 days as the contributions are new. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 21:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing. --Rschen7754 22:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

05 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Pro forma report. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 18:22, 5 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
This is a pro forma report to say that I have blocked 130.88.114.41 as a sockpuppet of Sheffno1gunner, who is currently blocked for two months for sockpuppetry using IPs. (And on March 30 I also blocked 2.123.20.148 as a similar sock.) These blocks were made from behavioural evidence - please email me for details. Because of the block evasion I am resetting Sheffno1gunner's block. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 18:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

19 April 2013
A possible block evasion... User:130.88.114.46 would appear to be the same person and has been engaged in angry attacks against User:Emeraude: see User talk:130.88.114.46 and this set of edits to Emeraude's user page:. There was also this comment on Talk:UK Independence Party:. Bondegezou (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

25 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Disruptive edits of the user pages of Wikipedians previously involved in disputes with Sheffno1gunner and socks: e.g. User:130.88.114.46 was been engaged in angry attacks against User:Emeraude: see User talk:130.88.114.46 and this set of edits to Emeraude's user page:. There was also this comment on Talk:UK Independence Party:. And then there was this edit of my user page and again of Emeraude's at  by User talk:130.88.114.39. (Also see some prior discussion at User_talk:Mr._Stradivarius/Archive_14.) Bondegezou (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Bondegezou (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

User:94.9.107.169 seems to be making similar edits to the UKIP article's Talk page, including a failure of AGF here and is taking an interest in this blocking activity (see User_talk:Zzuuzz and User_talk:Emeraude). Maybe I'm being paranoid, but a possible additional sock? Bondegezou (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

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

I reverted the vandalism to Bondegezou's user page by 130.88.114.39. Seeing as how Sheffno1gunner has previously accused Bondegezou of pushing a pro-Lib Dem agenda on UKIP articles, I'd say it's a clear case of WP:QUACK. In addition, this edit seems to scream "sock" louder than anything. It's often common practice for socks to pretend to attack the puppet master in an unconvincing attempt to divert attention away from the master account. I think it's well past time we indeffed Sheffno1gunner given this long, sordid history. —  Richard  BB  14:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I have issued a couple of rangeblocks for the 130.88 IPs. (Actually, I did it a couple of hours before this SPI was filed.) These were my very first rangeblocks, so let me know if I've messed anything up. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 14:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, thank you Richard BB for drawing my attention to that edit on Emeraude's user talk - I've rev-delled it. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 14:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help! —  Richard  BB  14:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, after some more thought, I've disabled account creation from the rangeblocks, upped Sheffno1gunner's block to indef, and tagged the user page. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 15:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The range blocks look fine, but without knowing specifically what IP ranges you were actually trying to block, I can't tell you whether you did it "right" or not. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've sent you the list of IPs by email if you want to check my work. I used the rangeblock calculator to get the actual numbers, so hopefully there shouldn't be any syntax errors or anything. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 15:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The ranges you blocked were probably overly precise, but it looks looks fine. The reason I asked is because I happen to know quite a bit about the 130.88.0.0/16 range as it's assigned to my university. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 20:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for taking a look. I'll keep an eye out for any more IPs and adjust the ranges if necessary. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 20:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Closed. The IPs involved have been rangeblocked. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

19 May 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

These IPs have the same interests as Sheffno1gunner, namely UK politics, especially local politics. They have also used the Manchester University IP ranges (in the case of 130.88.52.43) and the same UK ISP, Sky Broadband, in the case of the other three. This is a pro forma report - see below. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 08:57, 19 May 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
I have widened the rangeblock on the 130.88.52 IPs - the previous one was too narrow, just as Deskana suspected. I've increased the block time to a year as well, on this range and on the 130.88.114 IPs, as Sheffno1gunner has been quite persistent. And for good measure, I have gone ahead and semi-protected a load of articles that Sheffno1gunner is interested in. Rangeblocking the SkyBB IPs would cause too much collateral damage, so semi-protection is probably the best way of stopping the sockpuppetry. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 08:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

01 July 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

User began editing on 15 June and became active very quickly, editing largely infoboxes in UK election-related articles in a manner which suggests familiarity with the syntax, and referring to a "cliff-edge" effect as a justification for reducing the number of parties in the infobox, as has Sheffno1gunner (IP listed in archive as a sock). They show a familiarity with UKIP-related articles going back to before the account was created; here they refer to a section which was removed in May, here they revert back to the "original picture" which was changed in May. As per the archive this user has on many occasions used IPs presenting themselves as different people to support their position in discussions and at Talk:UK Independence Party, IPs have started showing up to support them. January ( talk ) 11:25, 1 July 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
ConsciousKipper is a ✅ sock of Sheffno1gunner. A couple of IP addresses have been hardblocked. No comment on the IP addresses given here. WilliamH (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ConsciousKipper blocked (by me) and tagged (by Richard BB). I've also given the two IPs two-week blocks each. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 13:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And now I've rolled back all of ConsciousKipper's edits. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 13:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks resolved by CU. NativeForeigner Talk 18:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

11 July 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Yesterday I mass-rollbacked (who restored many of User:ConsciousKipper’s edits) after blocking as a WP:DUCK, this IP which edited for the first time today has reverted two of those edits and weighed in at Talk:Next United Kingdom General Election in support of adding UKIP to the infobox, the same position Sheffno1gunner has argued for in the past. Previous IP socks and  have also taken a strong interest in this article (Talk:Next United Kingdom general election/Archive 2). January ( talk ) 13:37, 11 July 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

 * I've blocked for 48 hours. Other admins are welcome to extend the block length if they think it's necessary. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 13:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll keep an eye on their edits. Looks generally good. NativeForeigner Talk 16:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

27 July 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Admitted sock. He frequently uses the 130.88 range and this IP is close to which he also used recently. In view of his stated intention to continue socking, would another rangeblock be feasible? January ( talk ) 11:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Added 212.159.166.201 (I think this is the IP he claims in the above post was wrongly blocked before). This IP reverted back to previous sock User:ConsciousKipper's version of the article at Norfolk County Council election, 2009 (that's the same article the admitted IP sock posted at the talk page of to complain about the reverts).  January  ( talk ) 11:55, 27 July 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

 * I've blocked 212.159.166.201 and rangeblocked 130.88.47.0/24, both for a month. We can increase the duration later if necessary. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 07:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocks taken care of by . NativeForeigner Talk 21:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

19 September 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

First mainspace edit was to restore previous IP sock’s edit to Norfolk County Council election, 2009  (this was originally made by sock  and persistently reverted back in by IP socks since then, see history), subsequent edits were to add UKIP to the infobox of United Kingdom local elections, 2014  – Sheffno1gunner is known to have a strong interest in UKIP, and this article was started by known sock. January ( talk ) 17:29, 19 September 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

 * I don't see a reason to checkuser; there is a lot of quacking but the number of IPs make it clear that a brief semiprotection is pretty much the only way forward. &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, and Norfolk County Council election, 2009 semi-protected for three months. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 22:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

12 October 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Similar interest in UK politics and particularly election-related articles, several early edits were focused on UKIP (as can be seen from the edit summaries). User has reinstated some of confirmed sock User:ConsciousKipper's reverted edits: exact reinstatement, reinstatements with other additions: , ,. Sheffno1gunner also edited penis-related articles and talk pages with particular interest in the images and CardBoardBoxLiving has commented at Talk:Foreskin on the image. The use of exclamation marks in comments is a characteristic which has been identified before (see 06 March 2013 for example). January ( talk ) 16:53, 12 October 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

 * ✅ NativeForeigner Talk 20:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Rschen7754 20:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

27 October 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

First four edits were to restore previous sock User:ConsciousKipper's reverted edits, , ,. January ( talk ) 17:04, 27 October 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

 * Massive is to previous socks.,  and  are all confirmed to each other. NativeForeigner Talk 20:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)