Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vintagekits/Archive

22 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Disruptive editing on Falkland Islands and Falklands War, claims articles are biased, POV edits without engaging on the talk page. Same focus on Irish nationalism, edit warring and accusations of pro-British bias. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

See also for previous socking. Adds a } tag repeatedly, without any discussion or current NPOV issues, claiming Pro-British bias. See also Sockpuppet investigations/Alex79818‎ for abusive IP sock puppets making exactly the same edit repeatedly,. There is no attempt to discuss any concerns, the edits seem to be WP:POINTy and disruptive. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to know how he knows my personal details, that he has repeatedly added despite my redaction of them. I changed my editing name on 8 December due to harassment. My first interaction with MFIreland was on 15 December a week later. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

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

This is another ridiculous clam by Wee Curry Monster just like the dozens of other claims. First of all he has givin no evidence for his claim that I am user:Vintagekits. He has submitted this SPI because I have made two edits to the Falklands Islands article about NPOV. Wee Curry Monster needs to remember he does not WP:OWN that article. He prevents others from editing that article by reverting there edits back to his last and then tries to get them blocked just like hes doing to me.-- MFIreland  • Talk  16:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

He has also tried to vandalise my comment above.-- MFIreland  • Talk  16:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

He has repeatedly vandalised my comment above.-- MFIreland  • Talk  16:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Run the CU, it's best to eliminate any doubts. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: Another SPI case by MFIreland on WCM (possibly AGF where MFIreland got the previous name from, but even so they shouldn't post it here). Also noting MFIreland has made more than 2 edits to Falkland Islands, 5 recently. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
You'll have to be a little more specific than that. Do you have any diffs that show a connection between these accounts? TN X Man 15:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I still don't see any connection to other than sharing the same general viewpoint.  TN X Man  20:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Since nothing has been added, I'm marking this for close. TN X Man  18:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

09 January 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

VK emailed me a few days ago appealing his block. I responded on his talk page because I don't want him having my email address. He emailed me again asking why I replied on his talk page when he's blocked from using it, except he screwed up and emailed me from the Latin Fury account. I blocked that as an obvious duck, but he's been using it for months and likely has other sleepers, asking for CU to check. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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

I reckon it tends to be true. Once a sock-puppeteer, always a sock-puppeteer. I'm quite disappointed. GoodDay (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sad thing is i wasn't even looking for it, he just forgot he was logged in as his sock when he angrily emailed me. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * He just lost my support for his unblock requests. GoodDay (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't see how anyone, even you-know-who, could support him after this, all the while he claimed to have changed and not socked he was using this account on the sly. If you count all the blocked socks he has fifty eight blocks. And probably more to come after the CU. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There'll be no end to the indef-block, AFAIK. PS- Was the e-mail colourful? GoodDay (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

We haven't had a CU run 'yet'. GoodDay (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I have no idea, if "You know who" or "Whoever that may be" will defend him, but I certainly will. Firstly, if that is VK editing, and I don't know that it is, I see nothing but a net gain to the project from those edits and proof that Vk has reformed. That Admins such as Beeblebrox seem to make it their life's carreer to hunt down conntributing editors such as VK, seems very odd and that even private and very honest emails can now be used against one is even more concerning. If Beeblebrox does not want to receive emails concerned with situation with whch he is dealing and reply to them, then he should not be in the job or pehapaps even an Admin. It looks to me more like a personal vendetta and the Spanish Inquisition than people trying to write an encyclopedia.In the past, Vk has been very bad tempered; unlike some editors he has not been suspected of crimes against morals, children, puppies and public decency, yet he seems to be treated mor harshly than those who are - which is a great pity for the project. I see at the top of this section it claims "Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims" as I said above, this all smacks of the Spanish Inquisition, I believe, like Wikipedia, that fine and upstanding  body of men used to cut a person's tongue out and then ask them to defend themselves.   Giacomo   12:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No doubt Vk/LF is still (or will be) participating somewhere on the 'pedia. His best course of action is to no longer seek unblocking & keep going until/if another of his socks is caught again. He's got nothing to loose, now. GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, "dishonest is the best policy" is an ethos strongly encouraged by Admins here. Not really surprising I suppose. I must be very stupid because I really don't see the point of keeping valuable and reformed contributing content editors blocked just beacuse an Admin wants to play at being Sherlock Holmes.  Giacomo   16:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Un-announced Socks aren't allowed, though. Particularly if they're socks of an indef-blocked editor. Dem's the rules. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, as any traffic warden named Jobsworth will tell you.  Giacomo   17:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This cuts both ways. Clearly Vk has been editing away quite happily on boxing articles. So why, then, does he even need his old account unblocked, to do exactly what he has been doing already? Vk will continue to edit WP even after this, and he will most likely continue to edit boxing articles non-controversially without anyone caring. However, he knows that he can't get involved in any abuse, shenanigans or edit in Troubles-related areas because if he does his socks will be uncovered and blocked. This is exactly the Vk you, we, and Vk himself (if you are gullible enough to take his claims at face value any more) wants on the project. Vk (the account) is poisonous; time to bury it for good. Let the person behind the account work unhindered, but within the barriers he has built for himself, and the project wins. Rockpock  e  t  18:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and I will go further and say that some of the trolling that Vintagekits and other Irish editors have to unergo here is obscene . I am totally amazed that we have any native Irish editors here at all.  Giacomo   18:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Exactly, Rock. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ...I dispute the account is "poisonous", but even if it were, is it a great victory that his opponents, who if that is the measure, nust have even more obnoxious accounts are now free to gloat? Somewhere, the peope here have lost their way.  Giacomo   19:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Gentlemen, this isn't the continuation of the VK unblock debate, it's a sockpuppet investigation. As I said, I didn't go looking for any socks, VK screwed up and revealed one to me through an act of carelessness while he was angrily emailing me about his block, which I might add I had asked him to please stop doing. Since a lot of noise was made at the unblock discussions about how we could trust him since he wasn't socking anymore, this would be relevant of we were to re-open those discussions at some future point, but that is not what this page is for. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way I don't know what is going on as far as any more socks but Latin Fury was confirmed by a CU who would rather not have found it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh don't try that, Alison loves every moment of the drama. After all, she was the one who unquestioningly unblocked Kittybrewster's mate in time for the Arbcom election. My sympathies are spent with her. I'm afraid most of the Admims involved with the troubles are more than happy to be so. Let then stew, but don't lets have any false illusions about them.  Giacomo   20:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Any my point is germane to that. It is neither within the project's capabilities nor interest to keep Vk from editing with socks indefinitely. Block them when they inadvertently draw attention to themselves, fine, but seeking them out seems counter-productive to me. Rockpock  e  t  19:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Coddling an editor who has been blocked 58 times is what seems counter-productive to me, but again it's neither here nor there as far as this SPI is concerned. If you want to advocate for a policy exemption for VK so he can continue to sock you will need to ask the community (again, elsewhere) if they are willing to grant such a dispensation. Good luck with that. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Beeblebrox, I have no doubt at all that you know exactly what you are doing, and that you understand every nuance of policy and the rules. That must be very rewarding for you and those of your peers who study the rules so asiduously while others are writing the encyclopedia. I am sure we are all in your debt. VK can stay blocked, Kiytybrewster can continue to be jubilant, I shall continue to write and God will remain in Heaven. End of story. RIP Vintagekits.  Giacomo   21:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a first, I find myself agreeing with Giano and am accused of "coddling" Vk. Beeblebrox: its not a matter of coddling him its a simple matter of practicality (and I say this as the admin who uncovered Vk's first sock- and meat-puppeteering operation about 4 years back). But its no skin off my nose — just a suggestion to minimize the janitorial workload, avoid a pointless sock/block arms race, y'know, actually help improve article content. Meh, indeed. Rockpock  e  t  21:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Getting back to the actual point here, could we CU User:PolvoMexicano as well? For some reason they created Latin Fury's user page. They edit boxing articles, and were recently blocked for hurling obscenities at another user. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why don't you wait outside the crematorium and have the ashes fluched down the lavatory, in case others try to bury them?  Giacomo   21:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Look up my friend, to the top of this section. I didn't go looking for any of this, VK has nobody but himself to blame. Either this was deliberate clue-leaving or yet another act of carelessness, forgetting who he was logged in as. Easy to do when you have an army of sock accounts. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Indisputable error: I am not your friend. You and I have nothing in common what so ever.  Giacomo   21:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We're both carbon-based life forms that edit Wikipedia. I'll happily grant that the resemblance more or less ends there. Would it be too much to ask to limit conversation here to the issue at hand? The issue at hand being if VK has any more socks, not if I am an evil rule-crazy zealot. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, run a CU on PolvoMexicano. GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh no, according to the CU, there's more then one Sock-master, around the boxing articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Sleepers are likely. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Vintagekits and Latin Fury are ✅ as each other.

Latin Fury/Vintagekits and PolvoMexicano are ❌.

The following accounts are ✅ as each other:



–MuZemike 22:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If those four accounts are confirmed, is someone going to hit them with a block? Please do.BrendanFrye (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This made me angry to no end, Called me a racist for asking if PolvoMexicano was MexicanoChingon. BrendanFrye (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Right then. I've spun off PolvoMexicano to its own case and have taken a bunch of steps there. As to the checks related to Vintagekits, I'm closing this. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

04 July 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Procedural open; this account was listed on my talk page. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Listed by me. Editing boxing article per vintagekits style. Obvious name connection. Probable sleeper account; there may be others. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  06:48, 4 July 2011 (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
Hmm. All of the accounts listed in the archive are. Also, the last check MuZemike ran (January 2011) didn't turn up this account. Unless MuZemike has some other information on Vintagekits, I don't think there's much for checkuser to do. TN X Man 16:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm probally a bit tired, but I can't see it. to clearly. 2nd opinion of clerk or diffs pls. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  00:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think it was based on username and edits to David Haye. It looks like that article has its own issues now, though, so this account may be connected to the other disruption there. This one is a little too tenuous, so I'll close with no action taken, I think. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

04 September 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Vintagekits is an indefinitely blocked user with a long history of using sockpuppets to evade blocks. Ruari Og first appeared on 28 July 2007, 2 days after Vintagekits was blocked indefinitely. Thereafter he reappeared for bursts of editing activity on 21 August 2007, again 2 days after another indefinite block of Vintagekits and again in April 2008, during another Vintagekits block.

Both he and Ruari share the same combative style and edit exactly the same articles. Here’s Vintagekits alleging anti-Irish bias and here's Ruari doing the same: “Mabuska is a biased and distruptive editor who crusades across wikipedia pushing a pro-British, anti-Irish agenda.”

Both edit articles about sportsmen primarily boxers and footballers, where one of their main concerns is the use of Irish/Northern Irish/British as a descriptor. Here are both arguing for the use of Irish, making arguments based on the teams they played for: Vintagekits and RuariOg.

Both move Person X (Northern Irish footballer) to Person X (Northern Ireland footballer) Vintagekits here and RuariOg here.

Besides that, moving multiple pages is a characteristic of both editors. As is creating articles on amateur boxers, Vintagekits here and Ruari here.

Finally, the writing style of both is virtually identical: compare this edit summary by Vintagekits with this one by Ruairí Óg. Valenciano (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' What am I supposed to do to defend myself here. Please advise.
 * It's too bad, once a socker, always a socker. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think commentary like that is really required GoodDay. For the record i always suspected that this editor was a sockpuppet, i just couldn't quite figure out who it could of been to even file a sockpuppet request. Mabuska (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I trusted Vk, to not evade his indef block. But, he went ahead & done so. I'm quite peeved. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Elen already blocked this account. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

{ec with Hello Annoying} *I thought he sounded familiar. Account created 28 July 2007 - two days after Vintagekits was indeff'd for the first time. Stopped editing 14 April 2008 when Vintagekits was trying to get unblocked, and had been rumbled for socking in February of that year, didn't come back until 21 July 2011. Blocked indefinitely --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Checkuser suggests the newest account is / VK. Per Elen and filer, contributions make the link rather obvious. I would recommend that the unblock request be dismissed. AGK  [&bull; ] 14:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

10 September 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This IP address changed about 100 pages in about an hour. The IP address shows a good knowledge both of rapid editing and of Wikipedia policies and procedures, which the IP editor explains though "I have been using IP addresses since October 2010. I never had a registered account". While this is possible it is also the answer one would expect from a sock master. It has been suggested by some other editors that the edits may fit those of Vintagekits hence the request for the check user. The second ip address 94.65.40.162, is an acknowledged address of 94.65.32.228. PBS (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Is there any actual reason for assuming this IP is Vintagekits? I seem to remember SPIs actually having evidence of similarity in the past. All one sees here is that PBS was so shocked by an IP's ability to use tab browsing that he or she blocked the IP for 72 hours, grossly mishandling the situation, IMHO. Not with malice, but still. In any event Kittybrewster said IP should be checked against Vintagekits at the IP's talk page, but provided no rationale. Perhaps PBS knows the reasons and forgot to write it out or perhaps PBS forgot to ask Kittybrewster. In either case, some actual evidence should be provided. So far all we have is that IP "shows a good knowledge both of rapid editing..." (this is what PBS calls the act of spawning tabs and editing them in sequence; how this is evidence of some special WP knowledge or a link to Vintagekits is beyond me) "...and of Wikipedia policies and procedures". IP explained that he or she has been editing since last October. PBS's answer is that a sockmaster would say the same thing. So what? The fact that a scoundrel would say the same thing as an innocent is now enough when coupled with the ability to use a clickwheel to justify an SPI? Based on what is available here, IP has been mistreated today and deserves an apology, not a sockpuppet investigation. -Rrius (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Greetings, I am the accused. I'd just like to say that I have already explained how I did those 100 edits at my talk page and it is open to eveyone to see. Just that.--94.65.32.228 (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  03:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * CheckUser . Per the Privacy Policy, with extreme exceptions, we do not publicly link named accounts to IP addresses. This will have to be dealt with via the usual channels. Tiptoety  talk 05:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Closing without action as the IP's edit's grow stale.

21 July 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Vintagekits is an indefinitely blocked user with a long history of using sockpuppets to evade blocks. One of Vintagekits' main editing areas was boxers, especially amateur boxers and amateur boxer championships and one of their main concerns was insisting that people be identified as Irish rather than British.

Now we have Sweeney581, editing boxing articles, including amateur boxing championships again insisting that people be identified as Irish rather than British and focusing on the Tyson Fury article, an article where Vintagekits previously heavily edited to insist on the boxer's Irishness. Vintagekits makes arguments based on the boxer's self-identification: "according to Tyson himself he considers himself primarily Irish" and so does Sweeney: "Shouldn't he be called Irish, since he self identifies as Irish?"

Sweeney's only edit outside the boxing area is also on a favourite topic of Vintagekits: Celtic football club. Here Sweeney adds the result of Celtic football club's European Cup game. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Celtic_F.C./Archive_4#First_Northern_European_team_to_win_European_cup. Here's Vintagekits] active in discussions about Celtic's European Cup results.

User:River City Boy looks identical. Again edits to the Tyson Fury article, insisting on the boxer's Irishness based on self-identification. Also makes arguments about nationality based on the country that they represented, which was a hallmark of Vintagekits in the past. Valenciano (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

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

You think I'm him because we both seem to be interested in boxing and Celtic (it was the Cliftonville article I changed by the way!)? That could probably be about half of Ireland. I made one edit to the Tyson Fury article after nobody responded to my question in the talk page, and when it was changed back I discussed it on the talk page again. What's unreasonable about that? Also, how do you get from that to claiming that I'm "insisting" that (supposedly multiple) people be identified as Irish? Sweeney581 (talk) 10:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I seriously doubt that "half of Ireland" are interested in editing Wikipedia pages on exactly the same topics: Celtic's European Cup record, amateur boxing championships and Tyson Fury's nationality. To answer your question, what's unreasonable is that you are yet again engaging in sockpuppetry and use of multiple accounts to evade an indefinite block, despite being advised against that in the past. Every time you do this, you make it much less likely that your block will be lifted, yet you never seem to learn. I'm not going to say any more, but leave it to others to judge. Valenciano (talk) 10:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Assuming my anonymity isn't affected, I don't care if somebody checks my account or ip, but you're clearly not acting "in good faith". You claim a link between my edits and a general interest in Celtic's European Cup record, when really I just noticed a mistake in an article I was reading about Cliftonville and corrected it. Similarly, you try to link my one edit to the Tyson Fury article to me generally trying to "insist" that multiple people be identified as Irish, rather than British (even though I didn't even remove any statement that he was British), and then you pretend that my edits show some (imagined) pattern which you presumably think is too unlikely to be a coincidence, even though once you're an Irish person with an interest in amateur boxing, it really isn't that remarkable that you're interested in other related things. I wouldn't even have bothered replying to your accusation, except that the idea that I've got nothing better to do than get involved in wikipedia disputes is offensive, given that I haven't done anything remotely confrontational on wikipedia. Sweeney581 (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * As another editor noted here, your apparent knowledge of Wikipedia procedures seemed odd for a new editor. Also, your comments above, to me, imply knowledge of WP:AGF, which I also find a little unusual for an account with a supposedly new account with around 20-25 edits. Valenciano (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm new to editing wikipedia, this doesn't mean I don't know a little bit about how it works. I knew you should assume good faith because it says so prominently on the Sockpuppet investigations page (something I didn't know about until you accused me of being one). As I pointed out on your talk page, you may want to look up the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor%27s_fallacy, to see why your "evidence" is meaningless, but since you don't seem to have responded to that, maybe you'll first need to read up on conditional probabilities before you can understand it. What you're doing is actually a textbook example. Sweeney581 (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm no lover of VK however the above evidence isn't strong enough IMO. Tyson Fury is a regular target for nationality change as are many boxers from Northern Ireland or boxers who may be claimed as Irish. These accounts may be socks of someone else altogether, however until they start exhibiting more controversial demeanours that give them away then we just can't say. Though VK is prolific with the socks. Mabuska (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

How long should this take to be resolved? Sweeney581 (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * . WilliamH (talk) 11:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Pretty confident that River City Boy is neither Sweeney nor VintageKits. I can't tell if Sweeney is Vintagekits though. Given inconclusive behavioral and technical evidence, I am closing this case. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)