Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/I B Wright

User:I B Wright

 * Suspected sock puppeteer


 * Suspected sock puppets


 * Report submission by
 * – Signal head   &lt; T &gt;  10:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Similarities in editing pattern suggest sockpuppetry. Commons themes are railway signalling, Southwest England, the Aerospace industry as well as being prone to incivility. One editor will typically leap to the defence of the other after edits are reverted or changed. Tries to deny sockpuppetry by demonstrations involving leaving messages with different IP addresses, but has now admitted to using a dynamic IP address.
 * Evidence


 * Two similarities of interest are hardly conclusive (South West England being a complete non sequiter). Nowere have I claimed to have a dynamic IP address except by Signalheads unwarranted asumptions (see below) I B Wright (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I B Wright
 * Works in the Aerospace industry (20/10/06)
 * You could have got this from my user page - hardly a revelation.
 * It did come from your user page (as clicking the link will show) and it wasn't intended as a revelation; it's to allow a comparison to be made with your sockpuppets' edits.– Signal head   &lt; T &gt;  19:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Reintroduces erroneous information previously added by 86.133.160.144 and leaps to his defence (27/10/07)
 * Signalhead had removed cited information, I restored it while adding a picture of the signals in question.
 * The 'citations' did not support the material at issue, and neither did the photograph.– Signal head   &lt; T &gt;  19:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But you vandalised the article by blanking the edit. You have no right to do that.  Your use of the word 'erroneous' is a clear admission of vandalism:blanking because you do not have the right to decide what is erroneous.


 * Makes false 3RR violation accusation (28/10/07)
 * Makes valid 3RR accusation - Signalhead reverted 3 times. Other than that, so what?
 * More than three reversions within the same 24 hour period constitutes a violation of WP:3RR. I reverted the erroneous material three times, and that was not within the same 24 hour period. This false 3RR accusation is given as evidence for comparsion with the similar accusation made later by one of the sockpuppets.– Signal head   &lt; T &gt;  19:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * to be honest, I had not examined the fine print of the three revert rule. If it is as you say than it should be a 'four revert rule'.  The name of a rule generally conveys what is prohibited.  A quick canter around wikipedia reveals several other allegations for making three reverts.  If the rule has the wrong name the confusion is understandable. I B Wright (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Everyone but you is at fault, is that what you think? – Signal head   &lt; T &gt;  10:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Denies being 86.148.143.220/86.133.160.144 (30/10/07);
 * That link contains no such denial. Signalhead has clearly invented this to bolster a false claim.
 * By referring to the anonymous user as "that other editor", you are denying that it is your sockpuppet.– Signal head   &lt; T &gt;  19:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct. So what?


 * Example of edit indicating connection with Southwest England 09/03/08)
 * How that indicates a connection with South West England is anyone's guess. I have some knowledge of the moon but that doesn't prove a connection.
 * Whether you have a literal 'connection' with South West England is not important; it's just to demonstrate a pattern of editing articles associated with that geographical area, in common with your sockpuppets. I'll refrain from commenting on your connection with the moon.– Signal head   &lt; T &gt;  19:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Adds erroneous information at Token (railway signalling) (11/09/08)
 * Information so erroneous that you let most of it stand with relatively minor editing. A complete non point.
 * It was erroneous nevertheless, and it all helps to paint a picture of you and your sockpuppets' editing patterns.– Signal head   &lt; T &gt;  19:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Who gave you the right to decide what is erroneous and what isn't? You don't have that right and blanking legitimate edits is vandalism no matter how much a knowitall thinks it is wrong.  A formal complaint has been made. I B Wright (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody gives me 'the right to decide' what is erroneous. What I have is called 'knowledge' and a good collection of reference material to hand. – Signal head   &lt; T &gt;  17:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Denies responsibility (16/09/08)
 * Correct. But then this is the point you are trying to prove.  You can't introduce it as evidence because it isn't.
 * It is relevant as evidence, because it's a repeat of your earlier actions when your erroneous material was reverted, viz you used a sockpuppet to reinstate the material and then to attack me.– Signal head   &lt; T &gt;  19:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Funny. There is no allegation of that here.  So Wrong again.
 * If you mean there is no allegation here of you attacking me, then that's because this report is concerned only with your sockpuppetry. Your incivility could be the subject of a separate report in the near future. – Signal head   &lt; T &gt;  17:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 20.133.0.14

This is a shared IP address (as the user page clearly states) that belongs to a gateway behind which there are tens of thousands of PC's. Mine is one of them. I do forget to log on to my account sometimes, so my edits will often come from this IP address.
 * You say there are tens of thousands of PCs on this IP address, yet there hasn't been a single edit from this address since 14 November 2007. Isn't that funny?– Signal head   &lt; T &gt;  20:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Adds some signalling information at Looe Valley Line (24/08/07)
 * Yes. So what?
 * Again, it's for comparison purposes.– Signal head   &lt; T &gt;  19:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Fantastic. Edited from publically available sources.  Pity you haven't get anything credible to compare it with. I B Wright (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Up to now, you have admitted to using the IP addresses 20.133.0.14 and 212.183.136.193 (which has a huge history of vandalism), so who is 86.148.176.111, who added a line to your text above? – Signal head   &lt; T &gt;  09:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Adds erroneous information at Signal passed at danger (27/09/07)
 * Not my edit. It could have come from any one of the tens of thousands of PCs on this IP address.
 * I find that very hard to swallow.– Signal head   &lt; T &gt;  19:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So erroneous in fact that it is still in the article (I hadn't followed the history last time). Or in other words not erroneous at all.  In any case who gave you the right to decide what is and is not permitted in wikipedia.  A formal complaint has been made in this regard.  Claiming material is erroneous when it clearly isn't makes you a liar.  In any case, not my edit.  I know little of the finer working of London Undergound. I B Wright (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Erroneous information was added under the heading "SPAD Signals". It was corrected by me shortly after being added, so no, the errors are not still in the article. – Signal head   &lt; T &gt;  13:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Example of edit indicating connection with Southwest England (19/10/07)
 * Not my edit. It could have come from any one of the tens of thousands of PCs on this IP address.
 * See my response above.– Signal head   &lt; T &gt;  19:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Again by making a false claim, you are a liar. In any case a few minute's research reveals that this edit demonstrates no such thing.  The Plymouth Bretheren originated in Dublin (in Ireland - a long way from South West England).  The connection with Plymouth is largely in name only.  So there i no conclusion to draw. I B Wright (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, here's an alternative edit (23/10/07) –  Signal head   &lt; T &gt;  09:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Has interest in Aerospace industry (29/10/07)
 * Congratulations: this IP address is owned by the aerospace industry. Hardly a revelation.
 * Again, not intended as a revelation; it's for comparison purposes.– Signal head   &lt; T &gt;  19:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I accept that I B Wright contributes from 20.133.0.14. But Signalhead's evidence linking even those is very tenuous indeed especially given that the latter is more than one contributor (I can't estimate how many of the tens of thousands of users contribute, but given the thoroughness of many aerospace related articles, it is a good many).


 * 86.148.143.220
 * Adds erroneous information at Home signal (25/10/07)
 * Well information seems to have been added. Signalhead has decided its erroneous, but beyond that, so what?
 * It's the edit that started the whole chain of events. I reverted it, then you used a sockpuppet to reinstate it and to attack me.– Signal head   &lt; T &gt;  19:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And Signalhead's use of the word erroneous and that he vandalised (vandalise:blanking) the edit by deleting it is proof that he has set himself up as arbiter of what may appear on Wikipedia (the edit being legitimate and not vandalism). Whether it was right or wrong is irrelevant, Signalhead has no right to arbitrate.  A formal complaint on this and other matters has been made. I B Wright (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 86.133.160.144
 * Reintroduces erroneous information previously added by 86.148.143.220 (27/10/07)
 * Now this might be a shot in the dark, but this may be the same user as 86.148.143.220, particularly if a dynamic IP address is in play. A quick check reveals that this is indeed a block of addresses allocated dynamically so it is highly likely that this is indeed the same user as 86.148.143.220 but even that isn't conclusive.  But that's as far as it goes.


 * Makes a slip-up by twice referring to 86.133.160.144 as though it's a different editor (27/10/07)
 * So 86.133.160.144 is the same person as 86.133.160.144. Wow, what a concept.
 * This edit proves that someone was deliberately trying to deceive. Why on Earth would 86.133.160.144 refer to 86.133.160.144 as though it's somebody else? Clearly, the person making this edit expected a different IP address to appear in the signature, or mistakenly thought that he was logged into Wikipedia at the time.– Signal head   &lt; T &gt;  19:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I couldn't possibly comment further. I B Wright (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 86.133.161.143
 * Adds inappropriate message at Token (railway signalling) (15/09/08)
 * Agreed, comment is inappropriate. But I had added some considerable edit of which Signalhead made some relatively minor edits (not all of which I initially accepted), but most of the edit was largely left intact.  I cannot comment on who else Signalhead has rubbed up the wrong way or why that contributor chose to indicate his contempt in the way he did.  I had no reason to do so for such a minor skirmish.


 * Reinserts inappropriate message and states that him and I have 'had a run in before' (15/09/08)
 * It seems to me that Signalhead is the sort of person who frquently has 'run ins', so it may well be true. I can't comment further.
 * Actually, I've had very little bother here, despite my high edit count.– Signal head   &lt; T &gt;  19:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's funny. Just the 'evidence' that you have posted here shows clear evidence that you regularly vandalise articles by adjudicating on material on which you have no right to adjudicate.  Further this whole business started because you are being accused by another ot others of vandalism and talking ownership of articles which you have no right to do (See the text of my complaint). I B Wright (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Makes false 3RR violation accusation (15/09/08)


 * Actually the 3RR violation claim would at first glance seem to be true. Signalhead claimed to have reverted the comment twice, but in fact he did it 3 times making him a liar.  In any case as the comment would seem to fall within the remit of vandalism, the 3RR rule wouldn't apply anyway.
 * No, I reverted the inappropriate comment two times. The other reversion was done by User:RJaguar3.– Signal head   &lt; T &gt;  19:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't examine the history, so fair comment. I B Wright (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, you seem to have slipped up again. If, as you state, you didn't examine the history then how could you have possibly known that the message was reverted three times, unless it was your sockpuppet that inserted the message? – Signal head   &lt; T &gt;  21:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Admits to using a dynamic IP address (and claims to therefore be unblockable) (15/10/08)
 * It would seem that this may be a valid claim. It was not made by myself however.


 * Comments
 * Please remember to notify all accounts listed as possibly linked to the sock puppetry in question (instructions).

Signalhead is having an edit war with someone who has expressed his point in a rather inappropriate manner. His abrasive attitude to others is such that he will rub people up the wrong way and it seems he has done so. When faced with an allegation he immediately leaps to accuse the nearest convenient contributor. His cited reasons don't stack up beyond suggesting the I B Wright and 20.133.0.14 are the same user - something that is not denied. They also suggest that the 86. IP addresses may be the same user, but the connection between the two is non existent.
 * Conclusions


 * Note: The phoney 'conclusion' above was added by the accused sock puppeteer, I B Wright. – Signal head   &lt; T &gt;  16:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The conclusion above is not phoney but yet another attempt by Signalhead to remove content that he disagrees with. I am perfectly entitled to draw such conclusions as I wish.   I have now made a formal complaint against Signalhead for Vandalism (blanking); Arrogant abuse of other contributors; preventing other contributors from making valid contributions to wikipedia; unilaterally appointing himself as an arbiter of what may or may not be edited into articles and bringing wikipedia into disrepute. I B Wright (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not appropriate for the accused sockpuppeteer, or the accuser, to make the conclusion. That will be done by others. --– Signal head   &lt; T &gt;  21:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not even looking at the first three IPs, whose last edits are from 2006-2007. This is not the noticeboard for that. As for IBW and 86.133.161.143, checkuser evidence shows it is unlikely they are the same person. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 21:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)