Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Setanta747

User:Setanta747

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets

One Night In Hackney 303  13:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Report submission by


 * Evidence

Setanta747 is an editor who edits from an extremely disruptive and biased loyalist perspective. There were regular edits such as this where he changed the birthplace of someone born before Northern Ireland existed from the correct Ireland to Northern Ireland. He was also heavily involved in the edit wars where loyalist editors claimed the Ulster Banner was the flag of Northern Ireland, when it isn't and has no legal status. As a result of this he was threatened with probation from the Troubles ArbCom case here. The account Setanta747 hasn't edited since December, since then the editor has been editing from IP addresses which given his contentious editing past is not a permitted use of sockpuppets per WP:SOCK as editors have a legitimate interest in reviewing his contributions, and in addition doing so is avoiding the possibility of probation being imposed.

Setanta747 editing anonymously was first discovered as a result of Articles for deletion/Kremlin (bar) being notified on his talk page here. 90.197.80.97 !voted to keep the article at the AfD here, and after a further review of the IP's contributions it was clear it was in fact Setanta747. As Setanta747, he repeatedly tried to remove well-known and frequently cited quotes that show Basil Brooke, 1st Viscount Brookeborough was a sectarian hatemonger, for example see here, here, here, here and here, which was even reverted by a Unionist editor. Editing anonymously, he then tried to whitewash the article by removing the remaining quote (including a summary that it should be on WikiQuote, which Setanta747 previously said in a summary on two occasions; see previous diffs), here and here.

There's been disruption by anonymous IPs on other articles, for example on Brian Faulkner, Baron Faulkner of Downpatrick he tried to repeatedly change the birthplace to the factually incorrect "Northern Ireland" against the consensus on WP:IMOS, see here, here, here and here. It isn't often that User:Traditional unionist agrees with me, but in relation to "Northern Ireland" being used to describe the birthplace of people who were born pre-partition he does, see here and here. There's been similar disruptive edits, such as this to John Boyd Dunlop, and this to Annie Scott Dill Maunder. There's also been attempts to add an unofficial flag to Portal:Northern Ireland/Intro (originally created by Setanta747), see here and here

The IPs are not only linked together by common edit theme, there's also edits to List of countries by compactness that show they are the same person. 90.210.214.15 made this edit to the article, which was then repeated by 90.197.80.73 this edit. Similarly with Portal:Northern Ireland/Intro above, where 90.197.80.73 made these edits which 90.197.80.66 made again. There's also edits like this edit which shows this editor is clearly not a "brand new" editor, as it was Setanta747 who originally created WikiProject Northern Ireland in the first place. And similarly this edit reverting a bot tagging WikiProject Belfast as inactive, another WikiProject that Setanta747 created in the first place. The various IPs have frequently been adding banners for the above WikiProjects to articles, which isn't really typical behaviour of IP editors but it is typical behaviour of Setanta747 - examples. There's also this where he chastises another editor for inadvertantly removing a WikiProject banner, originally tagged by Setanta747.

This edit summary of "reverted unexplained revert" is a common type of edit summary used by Setanta747 when anyone reverted any of his (sometimes) contentious edits, such as "undid unexplained reversion", "undid unexplained revert", "rv unexplained revert", "restore unexplained reversion", "undid unexplained revert", and "undid unexplained edit". The latter were attempts (two of many, others were -    ) to amend guideline WP:FLAG that would allow an unofficial flag to be used wholesale to represent Northern Ireland. Similarly "revert: please do not revert editors' work wholesale without explanation" is another common type of edit summary used by Setanta747 - "Please try to avoid reverting peoples' edits wholesale", "please observe carefully what you are reverting wholesale", "Please do not arbitrarily revert wholesale without discussion first"

To sum up. There's the exact same type of biased edits to the same range of articles, WikiProject tagging for two virtually inactive WikiProjects Setanta747 set up, involvement in Articles for deletion/Kremlin (bar), same edit summaries etc etc. There's plenty more if needed, I wanted to try and keep it relatively concise. One Night In Hackney 303  13:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this covered by sockpuppetry rules? I could be wrong, but none of the evidence that I can immediately see shows that the user has edited using IPs at the same time in order to avoid detection or attempt to demonstrate a faux consensus. I'm not being trite, more a genuine inquiry.Traditional unionist (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments


 * From WP:SOCK
 * "Alternative accounts should not be used to edit in ways that would be considered improper if done by a single account. Using alternative puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors cannot detect patterns in your contributions. While this may occasionally be legitimate (see below under legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts — or to edit anonymously without logging in to your account (emphasis added) — in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions."
 * Given his editing history, there's plenty of editors with a legitimate interest in reviewing his contributions. One Night In Hackney  303  16:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally I think there may be right to vanish issues here.Traditional unionist (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I take it that's an admission you believe it's the same editor then? One Night In Hackney  303  16:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's quite a combative way of putting it now isn't it? I think the evidence suggests that it is quite likely.Traditional unionist (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I certainly didn't intend it as aggressive and don't see how it could be construed that way, but ne'er mind. One Night In Hackney  303  16:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The IP addresses look like they are dynamic. They come from the same ISP, and none of the edits are in the same time period, as for User:Setanta747, this user has not made an edit for a while, and the last one was blanking the user page, so it looks like they are no longer contributing. Kip Kip 00:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly the point. Editors cannot simply abandon their account and continue disruption using dynamic IP addresses if editors have a legitimate interest in tracking their contributions, especially if they have been threatened with probation from an ArbCom case. To do is a violation of the sockpuppetry policy. One Night In Hackney  303  00:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To my eyes, its certainly a violation of the spirit of the policy. Given that editing restrictions have been placed on those articles by ArbCom, scrutiny is important, and editors are afforded less freedom than they is normally available. -- Relata refero (disp.) 19:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * I'll help out will this tomorrow. Have to dash for now. Rudget  19:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I find that there is sock puppetry here. However, the main account has been abandoned and the user IP hops.  Blocking will have no lasting effect and probably won't even be noticed by the user.  Therefore, I am going to propose a short community ban at WP:AN. That way if they reappear as an IP, their edits can be reverted. Jehochman Talk 13:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Waiting for results of community consultation on case, as proposed by Jehochman. Rudget  12:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The result of that discussion was that we should apply the probation to this user, including any IP socks they may use. They have evaded probation by gaming the system.  Jehochman Talk 13:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I find that there has been a violation of WP:SOCK and WP:GAME. This user was properly warned about the general sanctions in Requests for arbitration/The Troubles.   Due to the IP hopping, blocking the IPs is unlikely to stop them and may cause collateral damage.  I am going to block the main account for two weeks, place them on probation and issue a warning that any further IP socking may result in an indefinite block. Jehochman Talk 19:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)