Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Universaladdress/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( original case name)

On 21 February 2022‎ RiverCityRelay made this edit which removed the diplomatic boycott section from the page Boycott, they were almost immediately reverted by  who subsequently expanded the section. At 20:43, 23 February 2022‎ the IP makes this edit with the summary "Two sections have been hopelessly jumbled here; almost none of the Olympics boycotts cited were "diplomatic boycotts", rather being comprehensive boycotts or attempts at them, with "diplomatic boycott" applied to government officials not attending the Olympics in 2022 an entirely novel use of the term. Rewrite for WP:NEUT per "Uyghur genocide" article, which directly identifies this term as a "characterization"." to the restored and expanded diplomatic boycott section. *Two minutes later* RiverCityRelay continues the tearing apart of the section that the IP started using similar edit summaries (for instance the invocation of "WP:NEUT" in contexts that don't really make sense). I asked RiverCityRelay about this on their talk page assuming it had just been an unacknowledged error and could be a teachable moment. They reverted that question and an edit warring notice before leaving a nasty message on my talk page which did not in any way acknowledge the sockpuppeting concerns.

The reason I went to their talk page first is because the IP is clearly them, unless there happen to be two editors with entirely overlapping interests including a particular interest in the grammar of the article boson and the world biggest coincidence vis-a-vis them editing Boycott within two minutes of each other. You can't use logged out and logged in edits to make it look like two separate editors agree on a contentious topic as they did at Boycott, and you especially cant do it and then not fess up when caught. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

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

The above has nothing to do with sockpuppeting and concerns a dispute over article content that the above editor has attempted to advance by inappropriate use of warning templates on my talk page. Please see that user's talk page for that discussion, which seems to have reached a conclusion. Sadly, I find the aggressive and unconstructive tone of the above mischaracterization of my edits to have been characteristic of this editor during that conversation. RiverCityRelay (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Please note, additionally, that the statements by the editor above don't establish any sockpuppet behavior, suggesting without evidence a plot to manufacture consensus, when neither I (nor anyone else I can see in the recent edits on Boycott) has made any attempt in edit summaries, the talk page or elsewhere to claim our edits are anything other than individual and constructive work on the article.


 * The above appears instead to be part of a scattershot attempt to dispute article content at Boycott by any means, dubious or otherwise, an issue better suited for the article's talk page. Their concern, as already presented through (1) misusing warning templates to dispute constructive edits and (2) some very aggressive and odd responses to my request they refrain from doing so on their own talk page, appears to be over User:Rjensen and myself addressing the concerns raised in edit summaries through a series of constructive edits, issues the above editor reintroduced with their own edit.


 * As you can tell from that description, this is a discussion that properly belongs on the article talk page, as I have already suggested to the above editor, and I'm not sure of the intent of trying to treat it as first a case of edit warring, then, in contradiction, a case of sockpuppeting. RiverCityRelay (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Upon review of the privacy policy , the above seems to be a naked attempt to violate that policy by abusing this process to connect account to IP address. Again, I am not sure of why the above user has decided to abuse both warning templates and the sockpuppet investigatory process to advance a dispute over article content, though it's worrisome that the submitter above is attempting to circumvent the privacy policy. I'll leave it up to the admins to determine proper action here. RiverCityRelay (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Just a quick While CheckUser evidence should not be used to publicly connect accounts and IPs, behavioural investigation may be (and is routinely) used to establish them.  --Blablubbs (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Summary quirks and overlap make it exceedingly likely that the IP and RiverCityRelay are the same person; 3 months, master  for two weeks; I recommend any future violation be met with an indefinite block.  --Blablubbs (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , I had a look at this and I'm pretty sure RiverCityRelay is a sock of - see EIA, history of Adamantium and edit summaries (, among other similarities). If you agree, the account should be indeffed. Thanks,  Spicy (talk) 13:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Excellent catch, thank you. and  for confirmation and a sleeper check. The known accounts are:
 * --Blablubbs (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * -  Girth Summit  (blether)  15:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, is ✅ to the following accounts:
 * I'm highly confident about these ones. There are some other accounts which show some overlap but are less conclusive: I have enough doubts over those ones not to block (or name them here), but I'd be happy to take a look at any if there are further behavioural concerns. Girth Summit  (blether)  16:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I see this has been moved already - I've now blocked and tagged. I think this is wrapped up now - closing.  Girth Summit  (blether)  16:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * some of these accounts were fairly tenured, so I'll post a ban 3X ban notification at AN in a second. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm highly confident about these ones. There are some other accounts which show some overlap but are less conclusive: I have enough doubts over those ones not to block (or name them here), but I'd be happy to take a look at any if there are further behavioural concerns. Girth Summit  (blether)  16:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I see this has been moved already - I've now blocked and tagged. I think this is wrapped up now - closing.  Girth Summit  (blether)  16:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * some of these accounts were fairly tenured, so I'll post a ban 3X ban notification at AN in a second. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm highly confident about these ones. There are some other accounts which show some overlap but are less conclusive: I have enough doubts over those ones not to block (or name them here), but I'd be happy to take a look at any if there are further behavioural concerns. Girth Summit  (blether)  16:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I see this has been moved already - I've now blocked and tagged. I think this is wrapped up now - closing.  Girth Summit  (blether)  16:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * some of these accounts were fairly tenured, so I'll post a ban 3X ban notification at AN in a second. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)