Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yorkshirian/Archive

Report date March 24 2010, 19:09 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Obvious sock. The Thing //  Talk  //  Contribs  19:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by The Thing  //  Talk  //  Contribs


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Smells more like a troublemaking troll than a sock. What would be the point? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Account already blocked, no other accounts to block. TN X Man 13:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Just to sum up: Yorkshirian Forever's block was set by Floquenbeam, with the comment (either a sock (unlikely, IMHO), or a troll (more likely)). As the account was blocked due to trolling issues the checkuser evidence presents no reason to unblock. Thanks for the check Alison. Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 15:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Best deal with this quickly. This account is ❌ to or anyone else that I can see -  A l is o n  ❤ 03:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Evidence submitted by Will Beback

 * At the time of his more recent ban, Yorkshirian was engaged in a dispute at John Birch Society. Since then a series of new or dormant accounts have appeared to make the same edits as Yorkshirian.   Will Beback    talk    05:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yorkshirian has admitted to creating "hundreds" of sockpuppet accounts. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

 * Yorkshirian admitted to past accounts and stated that all were blocked save some "Zap ..." accounts.  This particular case is a bit of fishing at best.    You might find a shark, but I suggest that the premise is flawed.   Collect (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note - he has been blocked and can not post any comments in defense of himself. This may be "Catch 22" as well as fishing. The accounts described as "new" or "dormant", moreover, do not necessarily appear to be "new" or "dormant" nor have any of them apparently used identical language in their edits that I found. Collect (talk) 11:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently not a single one of the accounts listed by Will are socks. Fishing brought up one not even mentioned, as well as Apollonian mentioned by another person.   This was a fishing expedition at best. Collect (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't an opinion on the other accounts listed above, but I've added another account (The Apollonian) which is almost certainly Yorkshirian. The edits to Red Action are classic Yorkshirian trying to push the same Nazi POV he did with his account before being banned, and classic Yorkshirian edit summaries of "rv Bolshevism" and "undo vandalism by pro-Communist, American Plastic Paddy". Even if it's found not to be Yorkshirian (unlikely) I'd seriously recommend severe admin action (ie, indef block) is taken to prevent POV edits saying Nazis are "indigenous civil rights activists", Gerry Gable is a "criminal" and that Mass killings under Communist regimes is an appropriate "See also" link for the article in question. 2 lines of K 303  13:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Will Beback


 * Merged from Requests for checkuser/Case/Yorkshirian.  Wknight94  talk  11:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ the following accounts as socks of :




 * The following accounts are to be :


 * due to using proxies exclusively:




 * - A l is o n  ❤ 17:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The confirmed ones have already been blocked, but in the absence of solid CU evidence I am disinclined to act on any of the others. This issue has been bubbling there for months and the article is relatively prominent (especially given recent American politics) so it's not unreasonable for old or new editors to show up.  For those and various other reasons - timing of the accounts, previous edits, spelling - each one, while worth keeping an eye on, seems slightly different. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 05:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by One Night In Hackney
Pretty obvious sockpuppet of Yorksirian, compare "international Marxist terrorist organisation the PIRA" with an edit to a different article by a previous confirmed sockpuppet - "international Marxist terrorist group the PIRA". The deluded conspiracy theory added in the first diff is pure Yorkshirian as well, I say deluded as it falls miserably at the first hurdle when I reveal that neither of the youths killed in the explosion were actually Catholics..... 2 lines of K 303  13:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by 2 lines of K  303  13:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Pretty clearly the same type of language used, so there's no need for a CU. Blocked. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 15:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by RepublicanJacobite
The IP is busy pushing Yorkshirian's unique extremist views on articles relating to anti-fascism in Britain in a similar vein to confirmed sockpuppet, and this summary of "rv IRA/communist vandal" when referring to is typical Yorkshirian.

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 13:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC) It's quite obvious that this is them. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

26 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 " ~ "''

Various IP accounts originating from Leeds, UK, are probably sockpuppets of Yorkshirian as explained here. One page (Roger Scruton) was protected and at least two IPs were blocked for sockpuppetry and edit-warring.

Jprw appears to be another sock.
 * Jprw and the IPs edit primarily on Roger Scruton and Right-wing politics.
 * Jprw and the IPs remove "fascism" from Right-wing politics.
 * Jprw and IPs argue to exclude negative information at Talk:Roger Scruton/Archive 1.
 * Jprw and IPs appear to have a similar writing style - lengthy, verbose and patronizing. TFD (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The following edits from Dec. 11 are evidence of sockpuppetry and are at the least meatpuppetry, where Jprw posts the IPs comments on the Roger Scruton talk page after it has been semi-protected.
 * 2:02 KrakatoaKatie semi-protects Roger Scruton for "Excessive violations of the biographies of living persons policy: personal attacks by suspected prolific sockpuppeteer"
 * 3:49 IP posts comment on Jprw's talk page.
 * 6:38 Jprw posts the IP's comments to Talk:Roger Scruton.
 * 17:44 SlimVirgin "removed post from editor the page was semi-protected against".
 * 18:26 Jprw restores IP's edit ("reinstating unjustly censored entry")
 * 18:43 SlimVirgin again removes entry.
 * The folloing day Jprw posts a link to the IP's comments on the talk page "For interested readers".

TFD (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Reply to HelloAnnyong

Here is text from Yorkshirian:
 * This is a very contentious and bias addition. Fascists are certainly not part of the traditional right, far or otherwise. They didn't even exist when the traditional right was defined following the French Revolution. Which is made up of monarchists, theocracists and reactionaries. Mussolini was a revolutionary, who began his career as a Marxist and claimed as his biggest influence Georges Sorel, the revolutionary syndicalist. He and his movement are to the left of Bonapartism. It is absolutely disputed where this is on the political spectrum and as thus should not be included here.
 * Then you seem to be confused, or at least not very well read on the subject. Study the origins of the political spectrum—when it was first traditionally defined following the French Revolution, on the right were Theocratic Catholics and the Absolute Monarchists. It has always been disputed whether fascism is on the right, since it emerged during the 1930s (more than a century after the traditional definition of "the right"). Even by fascists themselves, such as Oswald Mosley who presented themselves as a third way. Though the left, especially in North America, seem to try to negate the complexities of this quite persistently, especially the inconvient fact that Mussolini began as a Marxist and throughout his career was influenced most prominently by Georges Sorel. Most scholars on fascism disagree with your opinion, to put it bluntly.

Here ia a recent posting by the IP:
 * If the terms "Right" and Left" in politics is being traced to the French Revolution (which is to say if "Right" is being defined as those who oppose the French Revolution, and "Left" is being defined as those who support the French Revolution) then Fascism is linked (both historically and ideologically) with the Left. This is evident to anybody who knows anything about the history. For the C19th history of revolutionary nationalistic socialism see the historian J.L.Talmon. This has been explained to Rick Norwood and The Four Deuces many, many, many, times, and although the latter's dismissal of nearly every major scholar who was written on the topic in the last thirty years as "non-mainstream" is not without its amusing side, it should not disguise the fact that their determination that this Wikipedia entry should promote the falsehood that [former allies] Hitler and Stalin were not only political rivals but also ideological opposites, is testimony either to their lack of interest in what they said and did, or in the continuing power of a lie cooked up by Stalin over 70 years ago to deceive.
 * I note that (yet again) The Four Deuces has made entirely false allegations. This time he claims that I am the person who disputed the value of his Oxford Dictionary reference. I note that he is also the person who consistently hides any discussion that draws attention to his historical ignorance of the origins of Fascism. I note that he now sees fit to delete any changes I make to the Wikipedia entry (and urges everybody else as well) on the grounds that I am a "sock puppet" and was banned for edit warring on this article. Assuming that "sock puppet" is somebody who contributes occasionally without registering, all I can say is that his claim that I was banned from contributing to this article is simply yet another lie. Maybe contributions to Wikipedia articles should be considered merely on their merits, now there is a revolutionary idea! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.72.11 (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Earlier postings by the IP may be found at Talk:Right-wing politics/Archive 9.

It seems that the IPs are socks of Yorkshirian.

It also seems possible that Jprw and the IPs may be the same editor, based on similar arguments and edits at the same time on Roger Scruton and Right-wing politics and the fact that Jprw posted the IP's comments to the talk page.

TFD (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Collect: Marknutley admitted sockpuppetry.  Bulletdropper also had a sock, Rapidosity. TFD (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Further evidence. This discussion between Jprw and the dynamic IP show a general agreement in views and writing style indicating that they may be the same editor, or at least that Jprw is a meatpuppet of the IP. TFD (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Further reply to Collect: According to marknutley, "Due to the duck test and having edited under my ip to avoid a 1r restriction (my temper again) arbcom has concluded i have broken my editing restrictions, as such i am not allowed to edit on a new account unless this one is linked to it". That was the essense of the SPI. Franklinbe's IP was blocked as a sock of a banned editor, following my SPI request, as he had continued to edit under his IP after his ban. There was a possibility that an editor was a sock of Bullet dropper and other editors had mentioned this. Bringing it to SPI was the best way to resolve the suspicion. In fact the account was not a sock, but Bullet dropper in fact did have a sock that was discovered through checkuser. TFD (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Collect, we are discussing three cases that I brought to SPI. In each case you objected to the investigation and in each case it was proved that the editors had sockpuppets. In every case your intervention disrupted the investigation, the most egregious example being the case of mark nutley, who is still blocked from editing. TFD (talk) 05:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Here Jprw restores the comments of the banned editor, which is meatpuppetry. TFD (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Well, this is pure nonsense, I'm sure that this can be easily disproved. When it is, perhaps the editor calling himself The Four Deuces will have the decency to apologise? We'll see. Jprw (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The user has well over three thousand edits, of which very few are remotely connected to Yorkshirian's interests. Fishing expedition at best. Collect (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC) Note also that the frequently edited pages for Jprw show no overlap with Yorkshirian, and the total intersection is on 9 pages - none of which were frequently edited by Jprw. And Wikichecker shows an extreme unlikeliness for them to share any sort of editing pattern either. Collect (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yorkshirian is a sockpuppet of User:Daddy Kindsoul who had 18 other sockpuppets. Yorkshiran has 73 confirmed sockpuppets and 120 suspected sockpuppets  User:SlimVirgin has listed 42 IP addresses that are possible socks of Yorkshirian.  Did you check the edit history of all these accounts in the 19 minutes since this SPI request was posted?
 * Your earlier intervention in the sockpuppet investigation of User:Marknutley actually derailed the investigation although he was later blocked and admitted sockpuppetry. Similarly your intervention to prevent a clear case of sockpuppetry by User:Franklinbe was unhelpful.  May I suggest that you stop objecting to every investigation I request without first reading through the evidence.
 * TFD (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So why is there only a tiny overlap? Exceedingly tiny. And different writing styles. And totally different hours of editing.   I do not examine every SPI, but when zero concrete evidence is provided, it is proper to note that fact.   As for Marknutley - I think a fair examination shows: 21:18, 3 November 2010 Timotheus Canens (talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marknutley" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: BLP issues, and since about everyone thinks it isn't MN anyway. Please do not restore unless you are a CU or have contacted me first.)  In other words - the SPI you filed was not why Marknutley got blocked.   He was blocked per .   You accuse me of deliberately objecting to "every investigation" you propose.  Let's look at the cases if that is how you feel:  at [] I wrote not a word.  So "every" is rather an overstatement. At  I said not a word.  It turned out there as well that the accusation was not well founded.  At  I wrote that there was no evidence. 4 0ut of 5 of the people you accused appear not to have been improper socks.  That covers all my horrid edits to your accusations.  I write on precisely two of your SPI accusation pages - and in each case, my doubts were well-founded. Thank you most kindly for this aside. Collect (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

@TFD (who has also posted in this section). When your accusation is unfounded (note the Marknutley case was not corroborative of your accusation, nor was the Bulletdropper case you opened found to support your specific allegations, nor was the Franklinbe case found to be sockpuppetry - he was blocked for incivility, not use of an IP address as most people, including you, have done. Now are you finished making this into a personal debate, please?  In every case I have opined on SPI, as best as I am able, I have pointed out severe weaknesses in the charges.  And I do not "follow" anyone here.  Thank you for accepting AGW as a precept.  To any admin - please just deal with the "quality" of the evidence provided here, and the fact that the accusations are not well founded per ArbCom principles. Thanks! It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause in an attempt to besmirch their reputations.  Collect (talk) 12:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

@TFD using this as a general aside about me is quite odd. In short, the accusations you made were not borne out. Your accusation that I somehow am following all the SPI claims you made was not borne out. Most of your total SPI accusations are not borne out. Yet why do you then post about me here? Collect (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

@TFD, restoring comments != "meatpuppetry." Really.
 * Meatpuppetry is soliciting other people to come to Wikipedia in order to influence the editorial process in a topic or discussion. A "meat puppet" is another editor that has been solicited to sway consensus.

Which is sufficiently clear. Now can we face the fact that the accusation against a person who disagreed with you on an article is ipso fact a sock or meat puppet? Your total record here is well under a ".300 batting average". Collect (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Honestly, I too am having a hard time seeing the connection. It's true that they did edit some of the same articles, but their other edits are quite different. Jprw has been an editor since 2008, and without being able to do a CU, this gets a little tricky. Collect TFD, could you perhaps provide some specific diffs to support your claims, or some specific evidence that shows a connection? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you mean Collect or The Four Deuces? TN X Man  17:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant TFD. My brain is somewhere else today... —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, TFD, but I'm closing this with no action taken. I'm really just not convinced by the evidence. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)