Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SportsEditor518/Archive

09 August 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

This is the first time I've reported here, so apologies if I'm not doing it right. SportsEditor518 was blocked for disruptive editing, which they've now done at two articles, and appears to have created a sockpuppet. The first article was Interstate matches in Australian rules football which was semiprotected on July 30 to prevent them from continuing to edit logged out. The EditorChief1988 user was created on Aug 3 and made a couple of edits. On Aug 7, SportsEditor518 was blocked for edit warring at Sport in Australia, much of which had been done by IP. EditorChief1988 then started edit-warring at Sport in Australia. valereee (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2015 (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

 * - In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
 * 1) At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
 * 2) At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
 * 3) In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  16:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hm...you know, I think I should watch for a while and get more clarity. I believe this is what is happening, based on seeing things over time, but I didn't gather evidence as it happened, and I probably should gather info as it continues to happen to bring it here. I apologize; how do I back out of this? valereee (talk) 22:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The filler withdraws the request. Closing the case.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  14:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Both accounts feature the same heavy focus on interstate Australian rules football and pattern of large edits interspersed with short, often mobile edits (Quermnbv12's contributions page vs SportsEditor518's contributions page)

Both edits push the same POV, attempting to assert a strong opinion in favour of interstate football, largely by listing isolated quotations (some from YouTube sources) and letting them synthesize an argument. (Qwermnbv12's diff vs SportsEditor518's diff, which both try to add some of the same direct quotations from John Platten and others).

Admins will also note from the above diffs the similar stilted language style and the occasional erratic capitalisation of words in the middle of sentences which would indicate the same editor is involved.

This investigation is raised because an article ban was placed on SportsEditor518 for Interstate matches in Australian rules football after a protracted dispute over content and POV pushing. Qwermnbv12's recent edits approximately one year after the original dispute contravene this ban, and my attempts to copyedit copyedit 1 copyedit 2 have been reverted immediately reversion 1 reversion 2. Aspirex (talk) 12:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

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

I am not SportsEditor518. I have done nothing untoward and there is no evidence of that. The reasons for Aspirex's claim just aren't sound. He brought up interspersed edits with mobile edits. I did that because I wrote the content first and used the mobile mode to use the automatic reference adder, because it's easier. I'm sure that's something a lot of people do. He also claimed I'm pushing a POV. How am I pushing a POV, all I've done is added sourced material and quotes that are sourced. It's not me saying it, it's other people. And he's descpition of me listing isolated quotes and letting them synthesize an argument isn't accurate. Everything I've listed has context and describes the fabric of the rivalries. I am not sure if editor Aspirex is acting in bad faith, all I've done is added sourced content and written to editor Aspirex about the content in question and others on this page and he hasn't responded in addressing the points I brought up. He also hasn't responded entirely another time. I am not that editor and there is no evidence of that.Qwermnbv12 (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I largely sore content on other pages which was sourced and I added it, I didn't think that was a crime. I'm sorry to say I think editor Aspirex is acting in bad faith, because he has proposed to keep the majority of the content on other less popular pages, apart from content which describes the nature of the Victorian teams side of the rivalry and has removed it. And not getting rid of content which describes the nature of the other teams rivalries. And he hasn't responded when I've tried to contact him to discuss what he's problem is with sourced content. I added sourced content from other pages, there's no rule against that. I've done nothing wrong and there's no evidence of that.Qwermnbv12 (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I don't see a topic ban imposed on SportsEditor518 in the link you provided. I see only a proposed ban. Moreover, why would a new account be created one year later to violate the "ban"?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I thought a ban had been imposed. And I have no idea what would motivate the editor to start a new account, but the evidence clearly shows that this is what has happened; and I don't believe I have to prove a motive as well. Aspirex (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll add that it's pretty clear upon reviewing some related articles that User:1a2b3c4za (Special:Contributions/1a2b3c4za) is also the same editor. Refer to this diff which adds the same content to a related article. I can't explain the motivation of the editor to open yet another account for this, but the similarity in account names (i.e. alphanumeric patterns) gives further evidence that this is what the editor is choosing to do. Aspirex (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 07:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 07:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 07:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 07:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 07:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 07:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 07:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 07:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 07:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 07:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 07:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * All blocked and tagged. User:1a2b3c4z does not exist.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  10:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 10:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , : Before we close this one, any thoughts on why User:1a2b3c4z appears to exist in the abuse log, even though the account is missing? Does this mean there was an attempt made to create this account, but the attempt was automatically blocked?  Apologies if this would be obvious to me if I were more familiar with filters.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is exactly waht happened.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  11:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Editor is a long-known single-topic editor (Interstate matches in Australian rules football) who periodically re-emerges to pushes a POV. Recent edits clearly match historical behaviour, including: only writing on interstate football (edit history vs previous socks including Qwermnbv12 ; edits compoised primarily of isolated quotes referenced from Youtube videos aiming to pseudo-synthesize a conclusion (recent diff  vs historical diff ; and aggressive and long edit summaries (recent diff  vs historical diff ). Aspirex (talk) 10:23, 12 June 2017 (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

 * , . The evidence given makes a pretty solid case. Along with this user having a history of creating multiple accounts to push edits like these, all have the same distinct pattern of editing. The IP, probably related, has not edited recently enough to warrant a block. Case closed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Repeat offender who turns up from time to time to post biased opinions on interstate Australian rules football. Previous blocks and investigations seen above from the past few years. Evidence and corroborating information as follows:
 * Almost exclusively edits on Interstate matches in Australian rules football and closely related articles (e.g. Victoria Australian rules football team): 44'sBigGoals contributions list vs Balmey, Qwermnbv12, SportsEditor518 etc.
 * Extensive use of Youtube (often bare URLs) as references is common between 44'sBigGoals and previous socks. 44'sBigGoals, 44'sBigGoals, SportsEditor518, Balmey
 * Extensive addition of direct quotations to articles, out of context and full of the original hyperbole, to synthesize a positive tone for the topic is common with previous socks. 44'sBigGoals Qwermnbv12 SportsEditor518
 * Numerous cases of adding the same stories with the same references can be seen. You can see a story about Brian Burke telling John Todd to buy champagne added in each of these two diffs (may have to search a little bit as they're large edits): 44'sBigGoals, Balmey
 * All of these similarities visible within the first fifty or so edits of the brand new 44sBigGoals account. Aspirex (talk) 07:33, 6 June 2018 (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

 * Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Repeat offender who turns up from time to time to post biased opinions on interstate Australian rules football. Previous blocks and investigations seen above from the past few years. Evidence and corroborating information as follows:
 * Edits which are larger than ±10 characters are exclusively on Interstate matches in Australian rules football and closely related articles (e.g. Victoria Australian rules football team): Scotty419's contributions list vs Balmey, Qwermnbv12, SportsEditor518 etc.
 * Extensive use of Youtube (often bare URLs) as references is common between Scotty419 and previous socks. Scotty419 vs 44'sBigGoals, 44'sBigGoals, SportsEditor518, Balmey
 * Extensive addition of direct quotations to articles, out of context and full of the original hyperbole, to synthesize a positive tone for the topic is common with previous socks. Scotty419] vs 44'sBigGoals Qwermnbv12 SportsEditor518
 * All of these similarities visible within the first fifty or so edits of the brand new Scotty419 account. Aspirex (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Edit to add that Scotty419's defense below reads pretty much identically to one of the previous sock's defenses see here for Qwermnbv Aspirex (talk) 10:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' I am not a sockpuppet. For one Aspirex has accused me of using biased opinions. That's not true. Everything I have posted is taken directly from the references, and are therefore fact. Two Aspirex has accused me of editing the Victorian Australian rules football team page, I have not edited that page. Three Aspirex has accused me of using hyperbole, to synthesize a positive tone for the topic. I have not done that. Everything I have posted is directly from the references, you can see for yourself. I am not a sockpuppet and the investigation will show that.Scotty419 (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't know how my defense is identical to this editors. My defense is small, this editors was massive. It was a pretty standard defense. All I did is make two small edits. How specifically are my edits correlating with this editors. Where specifically in my edits is it a biased opinion, out of context, full of the original hyperbole and synthesizing a positive tone for the topic, which corelates with this editor. I will give you exactly what is said in these references. In the 1970-1977 edit, which is from the book CHAMPIONS ALL A HISTORY OF AFL/VFL FOOTBALL IN THE PLAYERS OWN WORDS, on page 288 and by Matt Zurbo, it says from player Neville Roberts ''parochial? When we drove into Subiaco for the state game, the WA fans were throwing cans at us. They had to put bags between the doors so we could get through without getting hurt. On the way down they had bloody broomsticks with nails on them, putting them through the tires.'' And the edit from the State of Origin competition, 1977–1988, from the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuMotKXPUAY, which AFL media personality Mick Molly, talks about his experience at a State of Origin game in the late 1980's, which you can start watching at 37 minutes and 52 seconds and goes to 38 minutes and 10 seconds. I have given you verbatim what is in the original references, which is what is in my edits, which you can see for yourself. So where specifically in my edits is it a biased opinion, out of context, full of the original hyperbole and synthesizing a positive tone for the topic, which corelates with this editor?Scotty419 (talk) 07:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - the diffs are convincing. Please indefinitely block Scotty419 as a suspected sock. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 01:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * firefly ( t · c ) 15:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)