Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DarknessShines2/Archive

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations‎ | DarknessShines2


DarknessShines2

DarknessShines2 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
20 February 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


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

  • A50000 was an SPA who was active on highly disputed topics such as Mass killings under Communist regimes. Tentontunic is active in same articles, and has the same views about these subjects. The following evidence seems to indicate that, by switching to the Tentontunic account, the user escaped his block log entry, the placement under WP:DIGWUREN sanctions and scrutinity of his edit warring. (Both these accounts were created mainly for editing in similar POV topics. Therefore, it's reasonable to suspect that both are actually socks of a long-running user with a similar POV, although I haven't compiled enough evidence to propose any name here.)
  • Tentontunic also edit warred to remove the same tag:
  • A50000 doesn't like the sentence "Today the term the Right is primarily used to..." in Right-wing politics, and edit wars to insert a citation needed tag:
  • Tentontunic doesn't like that sentence either, and edit wars to remove it completely:
  • On 4 December 2010, A50000 was placed on the WP:DIGWUREN list of formally warned editors:
  • Before this, Tentontunic had made only 7 edits. The main activity of the Tentontunic account starts on 7 December 2010:
  • On 9 December 2010, A50000 was blocked for edit warring:
  • On 16 February, Tentontunic is accused of edit warring about the same POV-tag A50000 edit warred about:
Comments by other users
edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Tentontunic's first edits, which include creating an article and editing articles, show an understanding of WP terminology and processes. Appears to be an experienced editor. TFD (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting fishing expedition, and a grave misrepresentation on the facts. I have exactly two edits to Right-wing politics both of which were to enforce an RFC. There was no edit warring there. I have exactly two reverts on the POV tag on Mass killings under Communist regimes which I have actually self reverted on. Did user A5000 show an interest in 18th century books of poetry also? And The Four Deuces, if I am so experienced, why have you just fixed my reference error on the NPOV notice board? I have taken the time to read the rules and to follow editors around to see how things work here, and this is now evidence of a crime? It would appear to me that people use these tactics to hound out anyone they perceive as having the wrong point of view. I had hoped to contribute to this project, but have been meet with hostility and obfuscation, I have to wonder if it is in fact possible to get anything of worth done here. Regarding my apostrophe, that is actually how it is on my keyboard, ought I purchase a new one so as not to offend your sensibilities? Tentontunic (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

  Checkuser note: These two accounts appear completely   Unrelated.  Frank  |  talk  20:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

19 April 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

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

A checkuser is requested per jpgordon's suggestion here, and is cool if another checkeruser feels the evidence isn't as compelling.

Checkuser isn't magic wiki pixie dust, it's adjunct to behavioural evidence, and the evidence simply doesn't fit the pattern. Why would Tentontunic be motivated to go to the trouble of socking via alleged open proxy[21] over a POV tag in an article that is low down in his field of interest and has only edited rarely. There are many more editors motivated by Baltic nationalism I know of who would be much more inclined commit this kind of caper, Tentontunic is definitely not one of them.

As can be seen here Tentontunic editing of the Occupation of the Baltic states article ranks 14th, and there is no other article related to the Baltic states in his entire history. (Compare this to User:Igny the other person edit warring, where the Baltic states rank highly in his list of interests[22]). Usually sock puppets are intimately tied up with a particular topic area to such a degree that they feel driven to go to the trouble of sock puppetry. This is simply not the case here, he doesn't fit the profile of a Baltic nationalist. Tentontunic's main interests appear to be related to left wing and communist terrorism and mass killings, and there is no suggestion that he has commited sock puppetry in that area. If there is any particular article that Tentontunic would possibly sock, it would be the Mass killings under Communist regimes article which he had undertaken not to edit for six months in order to lift an one week editing restriction[23], but as you can see there has been no activity since that undertaking of March 9th[24].

As for the claim that he and these socks used the same OS/Chrome browser, well Chrome has grown to almost 12% market share, according to this report [25], and we don't know Chrome's prevalence among geeks self selecting to edit Wikipedia. So it isn't as unique or uncommon as one might suspect, and given the absence of typical behavioural indicators Tentontunic must be given the benefit of the doubt. Martin (talk) 05:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

Comment: This one's an exception to the rule against checkuser requests to prove innocence; consider this, instead, a request for a checkuser review of my finding regarding TenTonTunic in the absence of an initial SPI. --jpgordon::==( o ) 06:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't exactly what was asked, but since I've looked and discovered it,   Confirmed that Tentontunic is a reincarnation of Marknutley. Little Big Man is also   Confirmed. The question of the IPs may be incidental at this point. Dominic·t 19:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
22 May 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

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

IP88.108.224.95 is currently blocked as a suspected sock of mark nutley and both the other two IPs and The Last Angry Man appear to be the same editor.

mark nutley and his socks, including User:Tentontunic and various dynamic IPs and OPs were active on Communist terrorism and its talk page, where these new accounts have recently edited. The main edit has been to remove tags.[26][27] This is similar to Tentontunic's removal of tags from Mass killings under Communist regimes:

  1. [28] 20:07, 16 February 2011 (And remove POV tag, silly to have had it here since 2009.)
  1. [29] 23:33, 16 February 2011 (Absolutely no justification for this given. Pure hyperbole.)


The writing style appears to be similar as well:

  • User:94.12.52.247: "anyone here thinking i am a sock would be wrong, i read the article and see fuckall pov about it. This blocking of an article from unregistered users is just another commie joke."[30]
  • User:216.169.108.198: "you ask for protection after putting back your version? typical commie"[31]
  • User:88.108.218.93: "Yes i did mate, because yourself and siebert were being dicks, you got a guy blocked for following policy when the two of you edit warred unsourced content into an article. Have a nice day :) Mark."[32]

TFD (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Um -- I would like to point out that the edit summaries are decidedly not congruent with nutley's wording as far as I can tell. Apparently calling TFD a name somehow becomes evidence that the editor is nutley!? Come on -- no evidence presented and SPI is not for fishing. You may catch a fish, but the failure rate lately is absurdly high! And asserting "sock" at the one edit mark for a new user sets a record! Cheers. Though I admire the nerve of folks who accuse every singly IP they run into of being a "sock." Collect (talk) 11:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
14 June 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Marknutley was blocked for block evasion 28 Oct 2010. He continued editing using dynamic IPs and OPs,[33] and created a sock account, User:Tentontunic. A dynamic IP began edit-warring on Communist Terrorism, which was then protected,[34] and the IP set up the account The Last Angry Man (TLAM).[35] I believe that TLAM is a sock of mark nutley for the following reasons:

  • Similarity of writing style
    • User:94.12.52.247: "anyone here thinking i am a sock would be wrong, i read the article and see fuckall pov about it. This blocking of an article from unregistered users is just another commie joke."[38]
    • User:216.169.108.198: "you ask for protection after putting back your version? typical commie"[39]
    • User:88.108.218.93: "Yes i did mate, because yourself and siebert were being dicks, you got a guy blocked for following policy when the two of you edit warred unsourced content into an article. Have a nice day :) Mark."[40]
    • Reference to other edtors as "morons": mark nutley[41] and TLAM.[42]
  • Another editor stated his suspicions
    • "The absence of capital letters, the language (especially "commie"), rudeness, anti-Communism and the British origin this IP indicates that the edits have been made by Marknutley/Tentontunic."[45]
  • TLAM and Tentontunic both use TW.[46][47]
  • TLAM deletes the article Terror.[53] Earlier, Tentontunic had nominated the article for deletion.[54]

Could editors commenting on this case kindly post under "Comments by other users" below. TFD (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


I've had a few run-ins with TLAM on the talk page of the article on the EDL; looking through the archives of user talk:marknutley, it strikes me that both TLAM and mn appear to frequently conflate the difference between fact, interpretation, and analysis on the one hand, and opinion on the other. Furthermore, allegations that an article is not neutral seem to be a preferred M.O. of both editors, accompanied by frustration on the part of other editors that mn/TLAM has a rather unique view of neutrality. That's my two cents, anyway. Sindinero (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Although, granted, as an afterthought, the epistemological confusion I've mentioned above is hardly damning evidence, as it's pretty widespread.) Sindinero (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is bullshit, I have already been investigated and cleared, how many times do I have to be accussed of being a sockpuppet? The evidence is bull, the accusations are bull, and it appears to me that TFD does this to drive new editors away. The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am bemused by TLAM's comments belowabove. Suspicions about that account have only once previously been brought to SPI, and TLAM was not notified and appears to have had no involvement with SPI whatsoever. TFD (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am even more bemused that you think it impossible that people can`t follow a few links to see what is being said about them, [55] Once people accused me of cheating I did of course look at their contributions to see what was being said of me. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find it interesting that you state you have "already been investigated and cleared", yet this is the first time this account has been posted on SPI. Interesting, indeed... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you blind? Look at the link posted in my last post, this is the second time i have been accused of being a sockpuppet of mark nutley. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that based on the evidence, The Last Angry Man is very likely Marknutley. There are plenty of similarities, and Marknutley is a serial sockpuppeteer who just keeps returning to these same articles to pursue the same POV. Nanobear (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
    • This is looking very {{likely}}. TLAM is using the same browser favored by the last confirmed sock of Marknutley (Tentontunic) and appears to be based in the same area. There is a difference in operating system, but given there was some time between the accounts I don't find it unreasonable to assume he got a new computer in the meantime. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • So he got a new computer with a different operating system but then replaced the broswer with the old one used previously, riiiight. And you think that is a reasonable assumption? --Martin (talk) 00:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC) (copied from below by Hersfold)[reply]
        • Um... Yeah. It takes only a few moments to go online and download the browser of your choice. Version numbers are of course different due to automatic updates, but it's still the same browser type. When I got my new computer the first thing I did was go online and download Firefox. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • As people have their favourite browser, they are even more likely have their favourite operating system. I think it is less likely that someone would change their operating system while retaining the same browser. --Martin (talk) 00:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you get a new computer (perhaps the old one was broken?), it's very difficult to get an older operating system. Almost all computers for retail sale come with Windows 7 or the newest version of Mac OS X by default. As someone who, again, has recently been through this, I don't find this at all unreasonable. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • You originally said same browser, different OS. Having the version numbers of both the OS and Browser, it would be relatively easy to obtain the release dates for both. If you assumption about a new computer purchase and subsequent browser download is correct, then the OS and CPU version would have to be relatively recent and the browser version installed would have to post-date the OS version, given the relative frequency of updates these days. --Martin (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Administrator note Closing off this part of the case, I've blocked TLAM per the findings. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 10:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16 June 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Another sock of Marknut also edited similarly User:Tentontunic Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

?? Hmmm, don't see any similarity what so ever, Minphie (talk · contribs) appears to edit a totally unrelated area, being drug related topics exclusively. I do note that Doc James appears to be having a content dispute [56],[57] with him. Surely this is not an appropriate venue for dispute resolution. In fact Doc James initiated a failed 3RR report Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Minphie reported by User:Jmh649 (Result: No Violation), so this SPI request looks rather appalling in this light. --Martin (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically looking at this set of edits by T [58] and [59] and M [60] BTW both this SPI and 3RR where started at the same time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is looking very {{likely}}. TLAM is using the same browser favored by the last confirmed sock of Marknutley (Tentontunic) and appears to be based in the same area. There is a difference in operating system, but given there was some time between the accounts I don't find it unreasonable to assume he got a new computer in the meantime. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So he got a new computer with a different operating system but then replaced the broswer with the old one used previously, riiiight. And you think that is a reasonable assumption? --Martin (talk) 00:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This was left in the wrong section; my check was conducted on the user in the investigation above this one, not Minphie. I'll move this up in a moment and reply to your comment there. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely correct that I am using a new computer since late April. And it is curious that I would be expected to change browsers with the change. But sock-puppet investigations, as I understand it, can establish that in two seconds by comparing computer id's. Minphie (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

  Unrelated – Completely different locations. –MuZemike 10:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

22 June 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


TFD (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Sorry, all I did was restore some content which had been removed, I left a rational on the talk page as to why. 86.26.201.167 (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You also removed the comments by Zuroff. According to mark nutley, who also removed them, "You also may not give undue weight to a person who`s sole purpose in life is to ensure that the holocaust remains the worst crime of all time".[67] TFD (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So? I restored it because it is relevant to the article, which I stated in the edit summary and on the talk page, might I ask why you removed my talk page comments 86.26.201.167 (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you remove the comments by Zuroff? (I removed your comments as having been posted by a probable sock.) TFD (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed Zuroff due to it being off topic, there is no mention of the holocaust in the article after all? And a few editors on the talk page believed it also had no place in the article. And ought you not wait until your accusation has borne fruit before you remove my comments? wp:agf 86.26.201.167 (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
26 June 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


This new account appears to be used by an experienced editor. The types of edits, writing style, and viewpoint are similar to User:Marknutley and his socks. This editor drew my attention because of his appearance at Social liberalism, an article that has not attracted disputes recently. The last talk page discussion (excluding a replacement of an image file) was over two months ago.[68] However, two days after I archived the talk page discussion,[69] Prochon made his first edit.[70] His reply to me on the talk page indicates some history with me based on tone ("How the hell are social liberals conservative in social issues? Do you know what the "liberal" part means?"), and reference to previous discussion on the talk page (all of which had been archived).[71]

  • Experienced editor: first edit is removing POV tag with edit summary, "WP:NPOV, WP:BLP",[72] second edit is voting on an AfD.[73]
  • Use of abrasive edit summaries: Prochron ("remove nonsense"),[86] Tentontunic ("Again with the nonsense")[87] The Last Angry Man ("POV Issue: Has to be a joke")[88]

TFD (talk) 13:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

No actual evidence for this charge. SPI is not the place to settle scores about content disputes. Collect (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given your history, you might consider taking your own advice. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What the heck are you suggesting? That I have made SPI reports without evidence? I suggest you recall that SPI is a poor place indeed to make personal attacks, Boris. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggesting that you hold yourself to the same standards that you expect from others is a "personal attack?" Interesting. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite surprised by this charge, given that I have never had any contact with the accuser besides a simple content dispute. I guess I hit a nerve here.
As the clerk indicated above, I am indeed an experienced user and I do have several accounts. However they are for privacy purposes; I am an infrequent user and I generally try not to engage in content disputes. To my knowledge I have never used two accounts to edit the same page, although I might be mistaken. I believe using multiple accounts for privacy reasons is allowed, but if the rules have changed over the last few years or if I have misread them, please remind me. Prochron (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: Here is the relevant policy I found. I believe my use of different accounts (namely the one shown below, plus a few others that I have not used for months or years) is clearly allowed under this policy.
Besides, the person I am accused of being has (from what I've gathered) never edited that article and has been banned for half a year. I do not see the point of this investigation. Prochron (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see that policy justifies the two accounts. Both are writing about political topics, including liberalism. Compare the entries for the Invisible hand[89] and Talk:Social liberalism. Both discuss liberalism, Keynsian economics, the Austrian school and classical or neoclassical liberalism. (And yes, I acceot you are not mark nutley, based on checkuser and your other account.) Since you have other accounts, you may wish to e-mail the checkuser to determine whether they are acceptable and to prevent their being revealed in future SPIs. TFD (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Editing similar articles is an offense to you as well?
Should I have to explain to you in detail how my series of edits, if they were to be made all in the same account, can be used to trace back to me as a person? If not, I would appreciate if you would not make any further inquiries about my choices. I have clearly not used my accounts in an attempt to deceive or to circumvent any policy. This much ought to be clear to you. I cannot perceive your further insistence as anything but bad faith.
I am not that worried about future SPIs. Indeed, during my long history of contributing to this community I've never met a user who would bring up a SPI over a 1-edit content dispute. Prochron (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have met such a user :(. WP policy specifically allows users to use multiple personas as long as their edits do not intersect, and even allows intersection as long as no attempt is made to conceal the connection between accounts. Many admins have such accounts, and, AFAICT, this is also true of Arbs. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, this SPI was not brought "over a 1-edit content dispute" -- TFD cites several Prochron/MN similarities, as was done with the MN/TLAM SPI that led to TLAM's block. In light of that, together with MN's history of socking, and also given the timing of the Prochron account's activation, etc., TFD's vigilance is to be welcomed, as is bringing the suspicions here. There are no grounds for disparagement. In particular, the suggestion that the SPI was brought to settle a score is regrettable. Writegeist (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
14 November 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


This IP user gave himself away as Marknutley with this comment, in which the owner identifies himself as "Mark" and signed off with Marknutley's signature "cheers mate". The IP range geolocates to the same geographical area as Marknutley. The IP user subsequently began edit-warring in the climate change topic area (another Marknutley signature) - see the list of contributions from the range, above - and was accompanied by incivil edit summaries again typical of Marknutley.[90] [91]. It is clearly not a new user as this edit summary shows. This is about as big a WP:DUCK as you could imagine.

I believe Marknutley is currently using at least one registered account (SPI evidence is in preparation - contact me for more details if required) so I strongly recommend doing a checkuser run on this range. Prioryman (talk) 08:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I understood - Mark lives in another country to these IP addresses - it could easily be impersonation, I have had some off wiki communication with the user recently - just sayin...I have no interest at all in the outcome of this investigation. Off2riorob (talk) 08:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is British and has acknowledged this several times, including identifying the town where he lives (or at least lived as of last year). The IP address is geolocated only about 70 miles away from his self-identified home location. Prioryman (talk) 08:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understood, but going by the on-wiki evidence - the language, the geolocation, the topics of interest, the behaviour - I have no doubt at all that this is him. Let's see what others reckon, though. Prioryman (talk) 09:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is all well and good, but the CUs never link accounts to IPs. If you have a named account, that's something they'll work with, but not IPs. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is (usually ;-) right. However, while CU is a useful and frequently applied tool, this is WP:SPI, which can reach conclusions about editors without technical support, and has done so often in the past. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth making an exception here. The IPs appear to be related to a dedicated server or webhost. The range contributions indicate no other person is using that range to edit anonymously. Therefore it is pretty well certain that any registered account on that range will belong to the same person. Prioryman (talk) 09:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

SPI is a poor fishing hole. A 70 mile radius in England is a "very big area" and would likely have a large number of users. IP addresses which are assigned "on the fly" by any ISP are not generally considered "socks" of each other, nor do I find any evidence here more than "IDONTLIKEHISPOSITIONS" as a reason for the assertion that they are automatically Nutley. :acking evidence, I suggest this SPI is simply a fishing expedition where we know in advance that SPI can not determine anything much. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is fishing. That was merely correcting O2RR's error William M. Connolley (talk) 13:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which error is that? All I have said is that I have lots of off wiki contact with the living person that used to edit here as Nulty and from my investigation of these IP addresses unless they are open proxies they are not him - he would definately not post on my userpage2 - I would block the IP's for impersonation. I don't know enough about the edits but I would say, your being played. - Off2riorob (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your assertion that geolocate of these indicates it isn't MN. Perhaps you should forward your exciting correspondence to a clerk William M. Connolley (talk) 14:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You feel that being in an area with possibly 2/3 of the entire English population is significant? Interesting concept, that. Collect (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a rather weak defence, Collect. The IPs are clearly linked. What you see from this aggregated list is a series of user sessions, all from the same range (188.227.160.0/18), all relating to the same subject matter. It starts with the "myself (Mark)" comment on Off2riorob's user talk page. We know from Off2riorob's comments above that Marknutley has been in touch with him off-wiki, so this fits with the IP editor being Marknutley - why else would he contact Off2riorob initially and refer to himself as "Mark", if he did not believe that Off2riorob would know who "Mark" was? The subject of that first comment on Off2riorob's talk page, the article on Joanne Nova, was repeatedly edited by multiple IP addresses from the same range over the following days to address the perceived BLP issues that the initial IP editor alluded to. This clearly demonstrates that the same person, "myself (Mark)", was linked to all of these IP addresses. "IDONTLIKEHISPOSITIONS" has not been invoked by anyone other than you. Let's summarise: we have a British user, geolocated near Marknutley, who calls himself Mark, who believes Off2riorob knows him, who edits disruptively in a topic area from which Marknutley is banned, using the same colloquialisms, who is clearly not a new user and knows what acronyms like ANI, BLP, OR and RS means, and who takes the same abusive approach towards other editors and editing that got Marknutley into trouble. If you think that combination is merely a coincidence I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Prioryman (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NSS - IPs from a single ISP may well be linked. The problem is asserting that because someone lives 70 miles from another person that this means anything at all. A 70 mile radius can represent 15,000 sq. mil. or about 1/3 of England. "Geolocated near Marknutley" is a gross overstatement. "Colloquialism" are generally British in the case at hand - and I hesitate to tell you there: Wikipedia has a large number of British editors! "Mark" is a fairly common first name in England, by the way, with it being "number one" a few times (in 1974 for example). If you said your name was "William" I would not therefor leap to say you are WMC <g> It is that connection which I find exceedingly weak. Sorry - the hook has no bait on it. Collect (talk) 14:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are reaching, badly. The combination of evidence is convincing. It's not 100 percent bulletproof, but then nothing outside of pure mathematics is. The conclusion that the IP is MN is certainly beyond reasonable doubt. And the only remotely plausible alternative explanation is an impostor, who should, of course, be blocked anyways.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um -- I think you forgot that 15% of the Scibaby "absolutely sure socks" weren't? Your "beyond reasonable doubt", isn't. And 1/3 of Englands area != much proof of anything much. What we do have is that the person appears to hold some of the same opinions as MN - which is not "evidence". Cheers. Collect (talk)
Either your memory or your interpretation does not agree with the commonly accepted version of reality. Where did we ever have a list of "absolutely sure socks"? What we do have here, however, is a user who geolocates to a position compatible with MN, who uses the same phraseology, who signs as Mark, who has the same opinions as MN, and who is a reasonably experienced Wikipedia user. Why do you bold arbitrary pieces of text? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was one of many broken bits of ARBCC - see the discussion there. Your tenaciousness in defending MN against checks is interesting, though William M. Connolley (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw some of the IP edits above and was suspicious, although not for the sockpuppetry reasons. The fact that they lead back to a hosting provider rather than an ISP has me deeply suspicious that this range is in fact harboring an anonymizer network, which should be blocked according to our open proxy policy. I can't find the exact proxy mechanism despite some poking (I suspect it's an anonymiser programme which is difficult to detect), but the range should probably be blocked for that reason alone. Returning to the subject of this investigation, Mark has previously used similar open proxy methods to edit, which I think adds to the evidence that the range should be given a yearlong or more block as a suspected open proxy. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

I find it hard to think of any way of reading the statement "it would just get reverted as scibaby or myself (Mark)" [92] in which that statement is not an admission of being Marknutley. What other possible sense of "being Mark" would otherwise provide a reason for automatic reverts on a par with "being Scibaby"? I'll block those IPs shortly unless I hear any good reason not to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

17 November 2014
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

I am adding this report so that it will be archived for posterity. DS admitted at ANI that he was the master and subsequently has been blocked indefinitely. We may want to merge Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darkness Shines with this case.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

  • As a heavily involved editor, TLAM was the actual editor I had my first dispute in this context with (at Taliban) and from then onwards, DS started hounding me. But they had edited together (supporting each other)... I just didn't know better about socking then. So here's a diff for behavioural evidence of TLAM / DS [93]. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The userpage hasn't been tagged yet either.. alot of WP:DENY needed there. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from all the facts and evidence I am adding to this investigation, from my own POV (not speculation); that formed after a myriad of conduct disputes with this editor sock, not including TLAM in his confession of being a sock of Marknutley might be to avoid giving any additional good faith to me, based on the fact that TLAM and DS both were aggressively opposing my edits and that TLAM being a sock as well undermines that retrospectively... esp. now that I've started the discussion to revert my blocks due to DS where there are un-refuted witnesses (admins & editors) and evidence that DS had been deliberately hounding me. As such, I can not assume any good faith that he would like me to regain any better standing than I already have. There might be a different counter argument to his denial from an uninvolved POV, perhaps a backup sleeper. However, I don't believe that TLAM and DS are different persons given the multitude of evidence relating them. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Where" as "were"
Regarding your statement, search for "You can be allied with someone and still exert influence over them, please post to the noticeboards a I have suggested as this is obviously going no-were" in the diff I gave above for use by TLAM. There would be plenty for DS. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can find more instances where the word "where" is misspelt by both users in other talk page archives too. Anyway, here's some evidence (edit summaries by both users where "where" is "were"): Darkness Shines: [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100]; The Last Angry Man: [101], [102], [103], [104]. Mar4d (talk) 11:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Timeline
  • 2011-04-01: Tentontunic AFDs Terror (fails).
  • 2011-04-06: Tentontunic asks for 'NPOV' on British far right [105].
  • 2011-04-16: Tentontunic reverts User:Igny
  • 2011-04-20: Tentontunic CU proven and blocked as sock of MN. (TLAM later resumes at many of his disputes so far as to get blocked).
  • 2011-05-16: Article protected due to editwarring IP.
  • 2011-05-17: TLAM Created.
  • 2011-06-01: TLAM blanks / redirects Terror to Wikitionary.
  • 2011-06-06: TLAM asks for 'NPOV' on British far right [106].
  • 2011-06-14: TLAM reverts User:Igny

Chronological (but added later) --lTopGunl (talk) 01:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a bit more interesting data about the timing of the DS and the TLAM accounts:

  • 2011-06-17: TLAM blocked
  • 2011-06-19: Last post-block edit by TLAM on his talkpage
  • 2011-07-07: DS account created and starts editing intermittently
  • 2011-08-20: DS edits become more frequent, edits every day
  • 2011-09-05: DS edits suddenly stop, after two weeks of very regular editing
  • 2011-09-08: TLAM is unblocked and resumes editing. Frequent daily edits until 09-19.
  • 2011-09-19 until 09-26: DS returns, both accounts edit on the same days, in alternating blocks, one account resuming when the other stops, but never editing simultaneously
  • 2011-09-27 until 10-30: only TLAM editing, except for two short sequences of DS edits on 10-07 and 10-27
  • 2011-11-01 until 12-17: DS edits become more frequent again, both accounts now edit strictly on alternating days: either the one or the other is active almost daily, but never both of them together. Edits by open-proxy IPs self-identifying as Marknutley (see 14 Nov SPI) also neatly dovetail with those of TLAM.
  • 2011-11-23: DS makes first edit directly in support of TLAM in a noticeboard thread (about Pakistan/Taliban dispute)
  • 2011-12-17: TLAM makes his last edit
  • 2011-12-27: DS resumes high-frequency daily edits, fully focussing on conflict with User:TopGun over Pakistan/Taliban and related disputes

In my eyes, that cannot possibly be pure coincidence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shared articles

Further: according to User compare, there are at least the following articles shared between DS/Marknutley on the one hand, and TLAM on the other:

Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We're only yet comparing TLAM with DS and MN... so I decided to take a look at TLAM's last SPI as MN... his edits also over lap with other proven socks of MN:

There's a whole list of evidence at TLAM/MN previous SPI with respect to TLAM's similarities to Tentontunic (sock of DS/MN) that needs to be re-evaluated in support of the new evidence. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shared style

TLAM's article writing [116] is characterized by the same style deficiencies as DS's: a tendency for additive, asyndetic sequences of sentences, poor structure, sometimes unlinked or poorly linked sentence fragments, and poor orthography. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
  •   Administrator note On DS's talk page is a CU check indicating no evidence the account has been compromised. I will verify that I emailed DS using an address I knew to be his, we conversed, I'm confident the account hasn't been compromised and he has admitted this connection of his own free will. Dennis - 2¢ 01:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under these circumstances, the Arbcom unblocking of The Last Angry Man (talk · contribs) (who had been blocked as a Marknutley sock on behavioral grounds in 2011) probably ought to be revisited too. Now that we have even more data about the behavioral profile, I find the similarities between the TLAM and DS even more striking. Very confident it was him too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Additional information needed Both named accounts, Marknutley and The Last Angry Man, are   Stale. DS has admitted to being Marknutley and there looks to be a behavioural case for linking The Last Angry Man to DS at this point. Checkuser has been requested, but what exactly are you ("you" being all y'all commenting) wanting checkuser to check? --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • I didn't request a checkuser. The only grounds for checkuser would be checking for sleepers, I suppose. The TLAM vs. DS comparison is of course purely behavioral. It's important though, even though the case is so old, because there will almost certainly be some kind of appeal some time, and several of DS's little côterie of wikifriends and enablers have already been encouraging him and announcing they would support him and patting him on the back for his apparent honesty in coming clear about the socking, so this notion of his "sincerity" (or lack thereof) in "coming clear" (or in fact not coming clear) will almost certainly play a role in judging any such appeal in the future. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no sleepers or additional accounts evident. I'll move the status to checked in order to allow the behavioural investigation to continue.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Clerk note: I've added TLAM as a suspected sock and Darkness Shines as proven. I think we can leave the Darkness Shines SPI where it is as the report was dismissed/withdrawn. So apart from working out action against TLAM (which might need to go through ArbCom) is there anything else which needs to be done here? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • TLAM should not be marked merely as a "suspected" sock, but as proven, and he should be blocked. The behavioral evidence is as clear as any SPI case that has ever been decided on DUCK grounds; if anybody seriously thinks it isn't, I'd like to hear them speak up and argue their case. Yes, Arbcom should be informed, but not in the sense of "we have a suspicion; please decide this for us", but in the sense of "we have come to this conclusion; deal with it". Arbcom badly dropped the ball on this one back in 2011, but this decision today is based on new behavioral data that Arbcom didn't have back then, so we are perfectly within our rights to make a decision here as in any other SPI case. Dennis Brown has hinted that Arbcom might already have received an unban appeal by DS, so it is necessary that they be very firmly told what the facts are here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry: did the unblock for Arb, and he is active, so I'm pinging as he may have some insight for the unblock. Looking around at TLAM's contribs and style, it does look convincing that this is DS/Mark. Dennis - 2¢ 13:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fut.Perf.: Unless there is an admission from TLAM (which there isn't) or CU evidence (which there isn't) we can't prove or confirm it only suspect or suspect with enough evidence to block. However as there is an ArbCom unblock following a block for the same reason we need to check with them first to ensure they don't know something we don't. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Since when are DUCK-proven sockpuppets not proven sockpuppets? Of course duck evidence counts as proof. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is well within the scope of this investigation and an uninvolved admin to conclude (or reject) TLAM being a WP:DUCK proven sock of DS / MN. ArbCom's decision to unblock it years ago has nothing to do with new evidence here and any future appeal is not a part of this SPI itself unless ArbCom gives a mandate while this is still running. WP:NOTCOURT. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Unquestionably we have the authority to block if there is evidence. The reason for the ping, and the reason for consulting Arb is simply understanding that there is a the possibility of more evidence given in private that would mitigate or clear the account, particularly since this was originally a sock of a banned account. While seemingly unlikely, due diligence forces us to consider this possibility if we are going to call this a truly unbiased and complete investigation. The risk of damage by waiting is lower than the risk of damage by rushing to judgement. Dennis - 2¢ 14:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, Cavalry was asked a week ago and hasn't responded here yet. So, what else now? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'll try to go through BASC archives and figure it out. NativeForeigner Talk 19:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • Sorry guys, this threw me a bit. I don't have many emails from that time, but I do have a few from the Mark Nutley/TLAM case. Having looked through them, we came to the conclusion that it was not possible to link TLAM and Mark Nutley beyond reasonable doubt. The biggest evidence we had was from a now-banned sockpuppet (not the best source) and it was not very convincing at all, based on phrases used in conversations etc. It raised suspicion... but not much. That's not to say that TLAM was not MarkNutley, but rather that we couldn't prove that the two accounts were the same with enough certainty to block. Another factor to consider is that TLAM had a lot of "collateral" blocks given out by over-keen admins.
                • To be honest, so much time has passed that I am no longer an expert in MN or TLAM. I can't evaluate the evidence above, but if you feel that the evidence is there to connect TLAM and MN, by all means link and block. We didn't have the evidence at the time - just hearsay. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 22:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I'm not sure what you mean when you say that TLAM had "a lot of collateral blocks"; his block log shows only the indef-block for sockpuppetry, followed by your unblock. Surely now, in the light of day, the admins who blocked this account look less "over-keen" (in your words), and you and your erstwhile colleagues on the Committee look rather more over-credulous. The evidence presented here is substantial and well beyond the usual bar for demonstrating sockpuppetry. But even back in 2011, some of our more incisive and clueful editors (e.g. NuclearWarfare, Comrade Boris, etc) identified this as a clear-cut case of abusive sockpuppetry, so it's not simply a case of 20/20 hindsight. I've blocked the TLAM account; I guess we learn from this and move on. MastCell Talk 23:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Archives confirm what CMLITC said. If there is evidence now, act on it. NativeForeigner Talk 09:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                      • MastCell, to clarify, when I say "a lot of collateral blocks" I mean that some "sockpuppetry" blocks were issued by administrators who believed the accounts were socks of TLAM - it later turned out that they weren't socks. When I say there was a lot of collateral, I mean that innocent users were too often blocked as socks of TLAM. For that reason, we were extra cautious about blocking any new socks and really wanted a much higher standard of evidence than was presented. NW and SBHS were not in possession of all the facts, and I stand by my original decision that this was not a clear-cut case of abusive sockpuppetry. That said, I understand that others may have reached different conclusions if presented with the same evidence! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 15:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, then. TLAM has been blocked and tagged as a certain sock of Marknutley on behavioral grounds by MastCell. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

24 June 2015
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Darkness Shines, a confessed sock, had been having lengthy edit wars and disputes around Pakistan-India-Afghanistan topic area. To be specific, his disputes included Balochistan conflict, Bangladesh Liberation War, and Inter Services Intelligence, all of the topics to which the IP 82.11.33.86 (who later created the account The last Watch (now changed to The Long Watch) [119] on per his unblock conditions). This is the IP's edit at ISI article [120] which is pretty much in support of what DS used to push into articles.

  • The Last Angry Man is a confirmed sock of DS and the account The last Watch (now changed to "The Long Watch") appears to be similar as well - generally I would have thought of it as a coincidence but this name change request (now approved [121]) just to remove the similarity (the word "last") [122] is shady.
  • Darkness Shines was also trigger happy about copyvios (regardless of being right or not) [123]; the IP/The last Watch has gone directly to removing copyvios and templating editors about it, something not much known to new editors [124],[125], [126] [127]. The suspected socks also know alot about wikipedia policies and drama boards / ANI etc along with unnatural grammar mistakes such as using "no" instead of not etc which seem deliberate to avoid suspicion. Similar Abuse of edit summary as DS [128] against editors he had interacted with as DS [129]. "rv pov pushing" as an edit summary is jargon used by experienced editors [130] and was often used by DS.
  • I would say this one was a major give away. IP 82.132 calls out another IP (86.*) a sock of Nangparbat [131]; DS and NP were hounding each other alot and DS had been filing alot of SPIs on Nangparbat (often being too quick to call people a sock). Inspite of being indeffed as a sock and later again after his BASC appeal, he's continued calling on socks of NP User talk:Darkness Shines#Nangparbat which is although ironic, also evidence for comparison here. IP and DS socks have both habit of continuing editwar on pov tags once they reached 3RR [132] [133] (often to claim that they were not adding /removing content anymore).
  • DS's obsession with human rights [137], IP: [138]. DS had also created pages on human right violations etc as per above.
  • Any one who has had a dispute with DS or interacted with him before would know that this is pretty much his writing style [139]. Pinging @Future Perfect at Sunrise: and @Mar4d: for a third opinion to ensure I'm not mistaken about this case.
  • Darkness Shines was in a habit of using asking people "do not remove" his edit [140] and this is quite visible in the IP 82's edits summaries [141] [142] [143].
  • IP 82.132.216.222 has accepted that the IP 31.49.253.103 was him in this diff [144]. Regardless of them being a sock of DS, the IP 31 !voted on Talk:Kargil War and the user "The last Watch" also commented there without any disclosure of being the same and after the creation of account.

I am not sure if CU will bear any results as DS admitted that he was using multiple IP ranges when he confessed to socking but who knows it might compare to a "likely". And ofcourse there's the geolocation of the IPs to the same country and a very specific topic area with specific corroborating evidence to take into account. Still, I've made the case behaviorally strong to ensure the evidence is complete with or without a CU result. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Post-CU Comments
edit

As the IPs have accepted to be the account and hence DS, CU confirmation is not needed for them and although they may have an autoblock, one cant be sure whether the account used them all. They need a suitable block as well till they can get reassigned. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has it not occurred to you that perhaps someone told me of them. 31.49.253.103 (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which makes you a meatpuppet? --lTopGunl (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not as such, more of an interested bystander. 31.49.253.103 (talk) 12:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IP, what kind of defense is that? Flyer22 (talk) 12:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And since the WP:Indentation is no longer accurate for my comment, I meant your suggestion that "perhaps someone told [you] of them." Flyer22 (talk) 12:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe truth to be the best defense, if taking an interest is not on let me know. Thanks. 31.49.253.103 (talk)\

TopGun, please stop engaging the sock in debate. It's plain obvious to everybody now that it's him; no need for further discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

  • Having come across DS' shenanigans for most of the past couple of years, there is a strong degree of evidence implicating the above listed accounts as socks. I'd say it is less than damning to expect a user who was sanctioned by the community for his actions to not continue a route of disruption. I've taken a while to review some of the behavioural patterns that appear to match WP:DUCK in obvious cases, and have added some supplementary links in the findings above, just to connect and complement the existing findings. Chronologically, 78.146.41.162 appears to be one of the first socks, editing the Balochistan article on 12 June. Later, the same IP came to the Bangladesh Liberation War to make a revert against a user whom it was involved with at the Balochistan article, having not edited the Bangladesh article in the recent past [148] [149]. On 13 June, it reappeared under 82.11.33.86 and one of its first edits was to initiate an RfC at Talk:Balochistan over what appeared to be some sort of content dispute [150]. These myterious IPs tended to have a good understanding of Wikipedia policies, templating users with warnings, adding tags on articles, and dragging users to WP:ANI. WP:AIV and WP:AN3 [151]. These patterns are unbecoming of a new editor. The level of WP:POV and style of editing is identical to that of DS, and the most convincing evidence perhaps is the user reporting a Nangparbat sock IP, which is basically a DS trademark. An interesting observation is the artificial language constructs and grammar used by the IPs; nearly every sentence appears to be replete with typos, grammar inconsistencies, deliberate misspellings - a clever ploy usually used by socks and meatpuppets to avoid detection. Further similarities include style of referencing and usage of sources very similar to that of DS [152] [153], views on use of newspaper sources [154] [155], removal of duplicate references [156], [157], and quoting WP:TPO [158] [159]. In short, this has WP:DUCK all over it, and in long, the sockmaster thought he'd be able to take us all for a ride. Mar4d (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mar4d: Will you add each and every IP from India or every new user from India as sock of Darkness Shine? You need to read article WP:IPs are human too for better understanding of Wikipedia policies towards IPs. Don't suspect every IP as sock just because they oppose your POV. Thank you. --Human3015 knock knock • 13:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am following procedure as per WP:DUCK. The RfC was infested with DS sock IPs, several of which were blocked by an admin. It therefore meets WP:DUCK that a new IP from a similar range would also be a cause for suspicion. I'll let the IP comment stay for now, but the IP has been added into this SPI investigation for clarity, and if found as a sock, it will be reverted per WP:SOCK. Mar4d (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

13 May 2016

edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Having dealt with this sock master extensively (please refer to archives), I am certain that Freedom Mouse as well as the IP are socks of Darkness Shines.

IPs
  • IP 86.0.200.166 geo locates to UK and the same region as other IPs that have been behaviourlly linked to DS accounts. Another behavioural give away: DS is quite obsessed with Nangparbat socks (and hey FreedomWarrior01 appears to be a sock of Nangparbat).
  • There is also another SPI open against FM, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Freedom Mouse, where it seems, he has been accused of using IP socks (which are infact webhost proxies) so I am not sure if CU will be able to link him (the account socks are all apparently stale) by comparing the established DS IPs in his archives but might be worth a try (without linking him to any of the IPs publicly as I know CU does not do that). With that said, the IPv6s are also trademark socks of DS. One of the IPs blocked in the same report by Bbb23 is showing same behaviour as in above point ie. tagging and obsession with Nangparbat socks [160]
Freedom Mouse
  • User page of FM was created by some one [161] having previous interaction with confirmed DS socks [162] [163]
  • Using pretext of "reliable sources" to take POV sides Talk:Insurgency in Balochistan/Archive 1#Content_removal (I have not read through whether he's right or wrong in this specific case, but it is observable in his previous behaviour).
  • "books.google.co.uk" being used by both DS [164] and FM [165]. Google defaults to the local search and this is clearly giving away their location in the references they use.
  • Identical edit summaries of sock & master: [166] [167] "Restore sourced information" etc. Another instance of identical edit sumarries as previously used by DS "add source" / "add reference" [168]
  • Use of term "annexed" in his pov [169] [170]
  • FM's use of poor English betrays common mistakes and looks deliberate [171].
  • Obsession with references from claimed experts in the field... FM: [172] and DS: [173] (search page for for "an expert in the field of genocide who believes that this" - without quotes), another [174] (search page for "The link you gave shows he is a Librarian, not an expert in the field, hence he fails as a source.")
  • DS used BLP as an excuse to edit war / claim exemptions [175] (noting that many of the reverts seen in this search are repetitive / editwar). Also here [176] (search page for "you btw are committing BLP vios on with your comments on him"). FM is using exact same excuses [177] in discussion.
  • [178] "Please stop removing sourced content" - using "sourced content" as an excuse to edit war (which is edit war and disruptive even if the content actually is sourced). Exact same behaviour from the master: [179] [180] [181].
  • Inflaming by calling others' comments crap/garbage/etc... FM [182], DS [183] [184] [185].
  • Using "Goodbye" in comments as a way for WP:LASTWORD. FM: [186], DS (see edit summaries): [187] [188] [189] [190].
  • Use of twinkle being such a new user, requested page protection [191]
  • All pages FM has been editing are from DS's area of interest: [192] ...even the edit count to interest ratio is the same for articles with overlap.
  • The Long Watch is an obvious comparison. TLW being his last sock was fully focused on Balochistan [193]... it would only make sense if his latest sock, FM, returned to the same topic. This is not a lone case of only one of his socks. DS had countless disputes with me before he was detected as a sock and additionally many of his socks later continued to disrupt the article and other articles around it [194] [195] [196]

I logged in after a break and saw the editwar (and eventual page protection) on my watch list, which lead me to investigate the not-so-new-looking new editors. After going through above diffs and DS's hounding of me (as seen in this SPI's archives and even in my block log), I hope the reviewing admin can be certain that I would by far be the right person to root out DS socks, knowing them well, and that the evidence given is beyond obvious. lTopGunl (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit
  • I'm convinced by the behavioral evidence. In addition, I ran a check and found some technical similarities to previous socks. As such, I have blocked the account.   No comment with respect to IP address(es), aside from the fact that the IPv6 IP belongs to a colocation service and has been blocked. Mike V • Talk 04:00, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

09 May 2016

edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Used one account to create a sandbox entry here and then inserted the exact same source and wording into an article using the IP here. The same dynamic IP has also been editing in other controversial areas, so the editor must either stop using IP's anonymously as he has an account, or should show in his edit summaries that he is connected to all IP's FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

This is going to be a personal attack against FreedomMouse as according to the logic of similar reverts, FreeatlastChitchat should be a sock of TripWire and SheriffIsInTown as he has made multiple reverts supporting his friends. --2A03:4A80:7:441:50C0:BEA8:5928:AB83 (talk) 06:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FreeatlastChitchat is the most useless disruptive editors I have come across in past few months.


Propose block for six months:

  • As fake SPI against Freedommouse is tantamount to personal attack.

That IP are not me, I added the content from my sandbox yesterday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedom Mouse (talk • contribs) 06:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

27 May 2016

edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Blatant WP:DUCK sock of DS. The sock has continued its POV pushing and coatracking from where Darkness Shines left by posting this article. The article uses the same writing style and tone as used by DS. Continues with his edits as seen in this article which he created [197]. Darkness Shines's use of Brad Adams quote (see the refs) shows DS written all over the article. Apart from that, the article is a compilation of random quotes and opinions and not a real encyclopedic article as would have been written by a legitimate wikipedia editor. Please also check the most recent SPI of Darkness Shines where he was trolling in articles related to Balochistan. The current article also focuses on Balochistan from start [198]. lTopGunl (talk) 15:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

29 May 2016

edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Please see last SPI. IP (from Swindon which is same as his previous proven IPs) canvassing users for restoring an article his last sock created. I am pretty sure making edits on behalf of banned (read defacto banned) editors is not allowed but I'm sure DS will find a way to cause disruption anyway. Please block. lTopGunl (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The IP was blocked by Mike V recently... I just noticed that it is the same IP that is editing again after expiration of the IP block. Perhaps a longer block for his IP ranges is needed. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

Blocked again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

06 July 2016

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Evidently started off from where he left his last disputes ie. Balochistan conflict. He's apparently trolling since quite some time on the talk page with unsuspecting editors. The IP is starting an RFC with a reflist and all. A new editor would in no way be able to do this Talk:Insurgency in Balochistan/Archive 1#An_actual_compromise. Darkness shines, on the other hand was highly involved in RFCs and used to start an RFC on most of his disputes. And ofcourse Darkness Shines's obsession with another sock puppeteer, Nangparbat [199]. This has been quoted a lot in his previous SPIs as a key give away and can be found with simple page search of the SPI archive by searching "nangparbat". Funny to see a "new" IP address to know well about another prolific sockmaster. The language / style of writing as seen here "Not frustrated, just amused. At least tell me, what is this SPA you keep calling me?" (from Balochistan conflict talkpage) is pretty much the same as DS. Additionally, recent SPIs give evidence of the master's change in trend relying on IPs and IPv6s instead of sock accounts. He appears to be using a range of IPs, recommend a range block as he is expected to change IP and come back as seen in last SPI. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Yeah, that's obviously him. Two days ago he was still pretending to be a mere newbie passer-by ([200], who didn't even know what an RfC was [201]). Two days later, he is able to immediately spot an alleged Nangparbat sock (DS's old bete noire [202]). The writing style is also unmistakable (won't go into details on that for WP:BEANS reasons). Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever is going to close this please also block DS's legitimate alternate account (Nihil Novi Sub Sole (talk · contribs)). -- SMS Talk 09:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

15 July 2016

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

The IP 82.21.*.* is a previously blocked IP of DS [203]. The IP became active again after its one month long block expired. A longer block would help. The account sock, Azad Balochi, is a new account in whose support the IP recently made edits. Seems highly likely to be DS as well knowing that his recent webhost IP range was just blocked after caught in the same topic area so CU might help. lTopGunl (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is me, I don`t often move house so tend to have the same one, but if removing copyvios is a crime go ahead and restore them. 82.21.35.147 (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. I must say there were no copy right violations in the article DS socks have been targeting. I suggest responsible editors remove DS edits before other socks retaliate. Azad-Khalistani (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that an account opened today knows about "DS socks." -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that someone experienced knows that it is a DS sock, but does nothing about it.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 19:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit


15 July 2016

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Azad Baluchistan is an obvious WP:DUCK sock of DS who recreated this article which was deleted by Bbb23 for being created by another DS' blocked sock: Robin strikes again.

2A03:8180:1101:B3:0:0:0:7 is also WP:DUCK as it is asking for the restoration of the same version of Baloch Students Organization which was being done vandalized by recently banned sock of DS: Azad Balochi.

In the last SPI CU was not run and may be this caused the Azad Baluchistan sock to slip through which was created earlier than Azad Balochi. Had it been run, in my understanding, the sleeper sock could have been checked/blocked and all this might have not been required. —TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 21:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. A new account would have just been created. Ravensfire (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon my ignorance as this was my first SPI. After much effort and search I was able to find out that Azad Baluchistan was created on "18:20, 7 July 2016" and Azad Balochi was created on "21:03, 14 July 2016." So, when the SPI into Azad Balochi was launched (before this SPI), had CU been run, the older account: Azad Baluchistan could have automatically been checked/blocked, if that's how CU checks for other sleepers by running a universal IP check. I may be wrong.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 22:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

27 July 2016

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

WP:DUCK. Picks up right from where he had left and openly admits that it was "him" [204] —TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 14:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

29 July 2016

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

WP:DUCK. Does the same thing which he has been doing since the past month. The IP also geo-locates to the same area as his previous IP socks. —TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 00:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry Bbb23, was I wrong in asking for a CU? I mean because it is an IP? Sorry again, as I didnt know. Asking for future reference.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 03:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was actually naive of me to do that. I should have guessed. No worries. Just to be clear, if only an IP is being reported to SPI which is being considered to be a sock of a named user then no CU should be requested, right? But if there's a combination of IP(s) and a named-sock-account being reported, then one can request CU.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 15:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Thanks.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 00:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

  • @Bbb23: Can this IP be blocked as a duck without connecting the user? The end goal is to block the sock and not to connect it publicly. It is clear that this IP is editing same topic area and displaying same POV as the alleged master. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

@TripWire: I thought you already knew not to request a CU when the only sock listed is an IP as we don't publicly disclose the IP(s) of named accounts. My apologies for the curt edit summary if you didn't. No excuse, but I was very tired when I responded to the case. If you need more clarification, let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TripWire: If there's an alleged puppet that is a named account, you can request a CU. However, as in all CU requests, you should explain why a CU is necessary.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@TripWire: Also, in the latter case you described where there are both IPs and named accounts, the CheckUser wouldn't comment on the IP addresses for privacy reasons. They would only evaluate the named accounts. ~ Rob13Talk 18:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DarknessShines2/Archive&oldid=1136434274"