Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Telanian/Archive

25 January 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets



Procedural filing as the accounts are already blocked. See Sockpuppet investigations/Drwho16 for checkuser findings. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

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

 * Closing as all are blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: this SPI has been moved to its current title from Sockpuppet investigations/Slogadog. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

02 August 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

The editor presents as an SPA focused on the inquest verdict of unlawful killing in the Death of Ian Tomlinson, specifically associating the name of PC Harwood with the verdict. "For legal reasons" the verdict did not name the officer and this was reflected in the careful prose used in the lede. Check user would clearly be stale in this instance. I believe that WP:DUCK applies and that this is a single editor who persistently attempts to make a - seemingly minor but technically significant - alteration to the lede of an article using multiple, previously linked, accounts.
 * 1) first altered this here . This was reverted, with the reasoning "Reverted misunderstanding of the role and outcome of the inquest."
 * 2) Masterdon5 was indefinitely blocked on 13 November 2013
 * 3) - a sock of Masterdon5 - returned to the article  to again link "unlawfully" and Harwood.
 * 4) - a sock of Masterdon5 - demonstrated very similar behaviour regarding naming names in the lede at Murder of Lee Rigby  "Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale admitted killing Rigby - and they were found guilty of murder in court - so there is no reason not to name them in the lead."
 * 5) - a sock of Masterdon5 - again demonstrated similar behaviour at Michael Gove
 * 6) "Restored lead material that was overzealously snipped"
 * 7) "In that case you will have to leave it for others to agree on, for I see no need to get rid of what seems to me to be highly significant and reasonable sourced material, that is appropriate for a lead"
 * 8) - who I suspect is a related sock - revisted Murder of Lee Rigby  and revisited Death of Ian Tomlinson, again linking "unlawfully killed" and Harwood.
 * 9) edited the Tomlinson page to again specifically link Harwood and the verdict:
 * 10) - arguably the same as  - continues to edit to link Harwood and the verdict in the lede:
 * 11) "I don't understand your reasoning. Nothing's being 'repeated'. The wording, as you seem to prefer it, is incomplete and misleading, as it falsely implies no finding was made as to who killed Tomlinson (the police officer). Do you disagree? If so, why?" Keri (talk) 13:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) - arguably the same as  - continues to edit to link Harwood and the verdict in the lede:
 * 2) "I don't understand your reasoning. Nothing's being 'repeated'. The wording, as you seem to prefer it, is incomplete and misleading, as it falsely implies no finding was made as to who killed Tomlinson (the police officer). Do you disagree? If so, why?" Keri (talk) 13:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) "I don't understand your reasoning. Nothing's being 'repeated'. The wording, as you seem to prefer it, is incomplete and misleading, as it falsely implies no finding was made as to who killed Tomlinson (the police officer). Do you disagree? If so, why?" Keri (talk) 13:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the archive for Talk:Death of Ian Tomlinson there is a strong possibility that this is part of a much larger sock farm dating back to at least 2011. demonstrated a very similar editing pattern, which is discussed in length at Talk:Death_of_Ian_Tomlinson/Archive_2. The tone used in that discussion is strikingly similar to that used by 95.147.94.92 and it is worth noting that the editor clashed with and was very critical of, as is happening again. What caught my attention was that Elvellian was subsequently blocked for socking (see also discussion at ANI). Looking at their activity I see a definite similarity in the way that they brazenly make edits like this (unlawful killing & Tomlinson) and this  (changing Nick Clegg's name to "Twatface") - much like   ("The man who unlawfully killed him, Simon Harwood") and  ("The Court of Appeal rejected their appeal, confirming that the two men will continue to rot in prison, taking it up the arse for Allah for the rest of their lives"). I don't know if this was a case of hiding "bad" edits in the midst of disruptive but otherwise "good" edits, or forgetting which account they were using, or simply defiance, but it was the hallmark of both the Elvellian and Masterdon5 socks. Keri (talk) 08:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 7 days later. No clerks? Keri (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

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

This is likely to be, who was indefinitely blocked in 2011. His focus was adding to the top of the lead of Death of Ian Tomlinson the inquest jury's verdict of unlawful killing, and making sure that the name of the police officer, or reference to the killing being by a police officer, was in the same sentence. (The inquest didn't name the officer for legal reasons.)

Examples of those edits:
 * Elvellian (May 2011)
 * Masterdon5 (27 Aug 2013)
 * Alnanah (3 Dec 2014)
 * 95.147.94.133 (July 2015)
 * 95.147.94.92 (1 Aug 2015)

As well as these edits to Tomlinson, Elvellian engaged in vandalism and BLP violations elsewhere. His posts to Talk:Death of Ian Tomlinson are very similar in tone and length to those of 95.147.94.92.

See Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive726 for the results of a CU showing that the person behind Elvellian was running multiple accounts. Telanian was the oldest: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Telanian. Sarah (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sarah and have moved the case to Telanian. you may want to look over these range contribs as I think he may have edited under other IPs such as this and it lets you know his other interests. He may be the only one using that range so in the future a hardblock may be very effective at curtailing him. Closing for now.