Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft/Archive: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 386: Line 386:
*{{clerknote}} Tags updated. — [[User:HelloAnnyong|'''<span style="color: #aaa">Hello</span><span style="color: #666">Annyong</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:HelloAnnyong|(say whaaat?!)]]</sup> 13:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
*{{clerknote}} Tags updated. — [[User:HelloAnnyong|'''<span style="color: #aaa">Hello</span><span style="color: #666">Annyong</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:HelloAnnyong|(say whaaat?!)]]</sup> 13:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
----
----

:MuZemike - can you please explain why the above six are blocked. It is not against wiki policy to create multiple accounts as long as they are not used for disruptive stuff. Pardon me if it is for deleted posts that I cannot see. But otherwise there is no proof that they are socks of Richard Daft. They are not used for doing anything bad either. Apart from a few posts in the dispute resolution, they have not even edited in the same topics. For all we know, they are people working in the same office and share an IP address. Also, if there is proof that they are not Daft, why are they tagged as Daft ? [[User_talk:Tintin1107|Tintin]] 08:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. -->
<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. -->

Revision as of 08:23, 14 November 2011


Richard Daft

Richard Daft (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date January 13 2010, 13:58 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Dweller

Account Richard Daft indef blocked in Jan 2008. The others seem to pass the duck test. Might need CU, but I'm inexperienced in CU matters. --Dweller (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: since opening this, I've uncovered droves more suspicious IP addresses. I presume they're disposable. This history log for example, is riddled with potential hits. --Dweller (talk) 14:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Without wishing to be facetious this 'investigation' has the odour of the Thought Police about it. I have been denounced as a disruptive element and must be purged. I'm afraid I don't know what Sockpuppetry is and if I'm honest, I don't care. WP is an open element - some people write brilliant things and others bad. I simply do not like things that claim to be good when in fact they are by any reasonable standard two and two making seven. HughGal (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC) The more I read the language employed within this section, the more ridiculous it sounds. I am the accused. ! I'm afraid a court conducted by made-up aims is, is it not - faintly ridiculous. Incidentally, this is a university department and at the last check, most of us were banned or whatever it is.HughGal (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged; behavioral evidence suggests that suspected sockpuppets are indeed the same. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date February 16 2010, 22:13 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Atama

MariaSpawasser is a brand new account, but their first, and so far only edits were to make allegations that User:JamesJJames was a sockpuppet of User:BlackJack here and here (with some follow-up comments at WP:ANI). I was trying to figure out what could have possibly spurred bizarre behavior from a brand new editor, so I looked closer at the merits of the accusation.

BlackJack has indeed been blocked for using multiple accounts. After BlackJack's block, JamesJJames became active after being inactive for well over a year to comment here and here about User:HughGal and User:Fieldgoalunit, two accounts that are now confirmed sockpuppets of Richard Daft. JamesJJames followed up those comments with a report at ANI.

MariaSpawasser's allegations have since been proven true at a different SPI, however I believe that those allegations were brought forth as retaliation for JJJ's actions above. It's obvious that MariaSpawasser is a sockpuppet of somebody, and I'm guessing that the person behind this is Richard Daft. I'm requesting CU to see if my suspicions are correct. -- Atama頭 22:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Atama頭 22:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Thank you for confirming my suspicions. I've blocked the editor indefinitely as a sockpuppet account created for block evasion. -- Atama頭 17:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date March 29 2010, 07:20 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by BlackJack

User:Richard Daft is again evading his block and active on the site by still harping on the same old themes which amount to a personal attack and are designed to disrupt the work of WP:CRIC. He is using both User:Rosebank2 per this diff and an IP address 88.108.14.15, under which he has made four edits yesterday. Would you please block Rosebank2 indefinitely and also put a 48-hour block on the IP address, which is a dynamic BT address.

Rationale is that Rosebank2 and the IP address both pass the WP:DUCK test in relation to Richard Daft and his various other accounts.

See also several posts today by Rosebank2 which confirm the DUCK test. --Jack | talk page 21:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Apologies if I have not done the form right. Please correct it as necessary. ----Jack | talk page 21:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence submitted by AssociateAffiliate

All are involved in a dispute with the User:BlackJack and are now posting comments on my Usertalk, taking the disagreement there. BlackJack is not the problem, it is the unwelcome comments from the reported IPs and known socks. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Add 88.108.13.111 to the list as well. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SOCKMASTER SpitfireTally-ho! 21:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And merged from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/88.108.59.160 SpitfireTally-ho! 20:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Rosebank2 indefinitely blocked and tagged, 88.108.0.0/18 blocked 1 week. –MuZemike 19:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 11 2010, 17:44 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by BlackJack

Rosebank2 was clearly associated with the various IP users and blocked indefinitely on 5 April per this SPI. Rosebank2 was active from 28 March to 2 April.

Today, I received this mail from Citylane who joined the site on 29 March and has mainly concentrated on music articles. Citylane also sent this missive to WT:CRIC which has been a frequent target for Rosebank2 and all the previous incarnations of User:Richard Daft. Compare that post with this one by Rosebank2 and I think I can hear the WP:DUCK quacking again.

This is especially so when you read this post where he says he is going to Turkey, while Citylane says in his above post to me that "the original Richard Daft is in Turkey until early May" and "Rosebank2 - not the same person". I wonder if they have gone to Turkey together?

I admit I was thrown off scent by the PWT signature at the bottom as this indicates that another person is writing. He is frequently mentioned by Daft/Rosebank (e.g., he quotes him in this edit). So, I thought at first that here was a Daft ally but now I am convinced that it is Daft all over again ad nauseum. It is the same tired old theme and the same poor grammar and spelling mistakes that we always see in his inputs. Quack, quack!

An interesting coincidence is this post in which Rosebank declares he was in Poland last month while Citylane edits Wroclaw and its talk page, making spelling mistakes in both (e.g., Jaunary). Quack!

And then there is this edit summary in which Citylane invokes the "distinguished" Keith Warsop who is such a favourite of Rosebank as per this edit and several others by earlier incarnations.

Despite my earlier doubts, I now have no doubt at all that Citylane and Rosebank are one and the same; and both of them are Richard Daft all over again.

Given that I did have a doubt about Citylane, I think you should run the checkuser first to see if you can match Citylane with Rosebank or the IPs. However, if you think all the WP:DUCK evidence is enough, then please just apply a permanent block per all the other Daft instances. ----Jack | talk page 17:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by --Jack | talk page 17:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk note: Moved from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Citylane --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk declined After a thorough review of the given evidence and comparing to archived socks, I see distinct similarities in grammar, phrasing, and contribution style. Combined with the seemingly personal vendetta against User:BlackJack,  Looks like a duck to me and I don't see a need for a checkuser. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • information Administrator note Citylane blocked indefinitely. IPs seem to not have edited in a while, so I didn't feel the need to block any specific range. NW (Talk) 19:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date 17:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by BlackJack

Yet another set of invectives from Richard Daft. Please compare the edits with the recent ones by User:Rosebank2 and User:Citylane and you will see that the WP:DUCK is as loud as ever. Note especially the references to User:AssociateAffiliate as "mental". In this post he confirms that he made this taunt (see previous SPI re Daft) and then claims that he was being "temperate". This sort of taunt is right out of order and you have to remember that when he first blocked, one the main reasons was that he threatened someone.

I have requested on WP:LTA that the IP range used by this person (i.e., 88.108.x.x) should be blocked long-term to stop him using the site at all. Is it possible to do that via this process?

Thanks. ----Jack | talk page 17:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

++Abuse++ You will note that the intemperate language is used by Blackjack. Whilst I have(The posts are my evidence) tried to question the reliability of his site, he has replied with aggressive language and childish ill thought out replies which do not seem to me to be that od someone who deserves to have his own long time ban lifted.88.108.30.208 (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note Account blocked and tagged. 88.108.0.0/18 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) blocked for 1 month. Tim Song (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
11 September 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Per a comment placed on my talk page. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
17 September 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

A similar IP left a personal attack on my talk page last week, the IP was reported as a sockpuppet of User:Richard Daft and was blocked for a week. This IP (which is without a doubt the same person) has left an abusive message on WT:CRIC attacking WP:Cricket members (see here). Also on the IP's talk page the user has revealed a previously unknown sock puppet account - User:KestevenBullet. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
21 October 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Following the personal attacks on AssociateAffiliate in September, the KestevenBullet account has been reactivated recently with personal attacks against me on my talk page and on WT:CRIC. In addition, an edit war has been commenced on these articles after initial edits were reverted for valid reasons around WP:CITE and WP:PRIMARY:

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft/Archive for September cases. There is no doubt that KB is Richard Daft (passes WP:DUCK as per all previous identities) given his targets which as always are articles on early cricket, WT:CRIC and myself personally. I have already written to WP:ANI about this but am not sure it is the right forum so have brought the case here according to instructions there. Please let me know if more information or evidence is needed. --Jack | talk page 19:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note Abusive sockpuppet per WP:DUCK. Accounts blocked and tagged. Moondyne (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

29 October 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


See this diff posted on my talk page 26 October. It was almost immediately reverted by User:Dweller who must have seen it on his watchlist; Dweller then blocked the IP for harrassment (see the IP talk page) and quoted WP:DUCK which is precisely what applies here as the post is a continuation of recent abuse submitted under the now-blocked User:KestevenBullet. --Jack | talk page 04:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
31 October 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


See contribs record of both userids which were newly created on 31 Oct 2011 for purposes of vandalism and personal attack; WP:DUCK test confirms it is Daft again and the abuse directly follows on from User:KestevenBullet having been blocked indefinitely; action has been taken already by two admins so this is entry is really for the archive only --Jack | talk page 15:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
03 November 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


This IP started today and is clearly a continuation of the Daft campaign per WP:DUCK. This time an attempt was made to address one point he had raised because it seems there has been an error in the secondary sources used but it has all resulted in the usual ranting and incoherent tedium. See the IP talk page for all the edits and talk page posts. It seems one of the admins has already taken action; certainly the articles impacted have been reverted. One more for the collection. ----Jack | talk page 15:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC) --Jack | talk page 15:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
05 November 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Further block evasion by User:Richard Daft. See this diff for the evidence. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 10:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
11 November 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


WP:DUCK applies as usual in the case of Daft who is still harping on about the same subject raised in his last three or four incarnations. This time he is claiming to be a real person, i.e., Peter Wynne-Thomas who is well known as a cricket writer, and so I would ask if this contravenes WP:BLP in some way? See all four contribs made today and also note the style of writing and the numerous errors, which a seasoned writer like the real PWT would not make but which are typical of Daft. Given that one member of WP:CRIC has suggested WP:AGF on this occasion, I am inviting all CRIC members to contribute to this discussion and say if they think the WP:DUCK test has been proved yet again. --Jack | talk page 19:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Comment. This alleged sockpuppet has made only one substantive edit and that has been acknowledged as a reasoned and correct edit; he has also contributed in measured tones to the WT:CRIC discussion page. While User:Richard Daft has a history of sockpuppetry and personal abuse, WP:AGF surely demands that we should not assume this new user to be a sockpuppet unless there is evidence. The real Peter Wynne-Thomas is a notable cricket historian: if this user is indeed him, he could have much to offer WP. If not, and he is a sockpuppet, then past history suggests he will reveal himself through an injudicious edit at some point very soon. Johnlp (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

As already posted at WP:ANI, the following are  Confirmed as each other:

I don't know if they're related to Richard Daft, and I cannot check that. I have already blocked all six accounts as it is clear that the socks were being used for disruptive/harassing purposes. –MuZemike 22:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MuZemike - can you please explain why the above six are blocked. It is not against wiki policy to create multiple accounts as long as they are not used for disruptive stuff. Pardon me if it is for deleted posts that I cannot see. But otherwise there is no proof that they are socks of Richard Daft. They are not used for doing anything bad either. Apart from a few posts in the dispute resolution, they have not even edited in the same topics. For all we know, they are people working in the same office and share an IP address. Also, if there is proof that they are not Daft, why are they tagged as Daft ? Tintin 08:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Richard_Daft/Archive&oldid=460577559"