Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HughD/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | HughD

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Ks0stm (talk | contribs) at 12:12, 20 January 2023 (Archiving case section from w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HughD (using spihelper.js)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


HughD

HughD (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

28 September 2016

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Based on the edit pattern, it is possible that this IP is used for the block evasion by user:HughD. That IP has made 35 edits to ExxonMobil climate change controversy which was heavily edited (370 edits) by HughD. Although most of edits are adding links etc, some of edits follows style of HughD ([1], [2]), including edit summaries. In addition, there is quite significant number of pages which are edited by both. IP has edited in times when HughD was/has been blocked. Beagel (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC) Beagel (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Attempting to provide a diff vs diff here: HughD vs the IP. May be insufficient here. NasssaNser (talk/edits) 02:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  •  Additional information needed - @Beagel: In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
  1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

12 December 2016

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

HughD's account is currently blocked for 6 months [[3]]

104.177.49.8 and 64.107.1.150, - Corvette Leaf Spring article edits

107.77.207.140 and 50.196.233.29 - Eddie Eagle article edits

The reasons why I'm suspicious, first the IP seems to be targeting article's I'm working with (exclusively or almost exclusively edits an article I'm involved with) and the IP editor is from Chicago (HughD's location). Second, the edit pattern is very similar. A series of edits done back to back rather than combining multiple edits into one larger change. The edit summaries fit the same verb-subject pattern and use the same abbreviations. Certainly IP editors who seem comfortable calling guideline type pages ("WP:ELDUP rem ext link used as source") seem to be experienced editor working while logged off. The way the IPs approached each topic also fit past patterns. Eddie Eagle is a politically loaded topic so the edits focused on flooding the article subject with negative material without any talk page comments. In the case of the more technical Corvette suspension article the editor scours the article for minor issues the tags them as a way to suggest the entire article should be discounted.

HughD is currently blocked (6 month that will lift later this month). Editing via an IP would be a violation of that block.

As an example of HughD's edit summaries please review the Pinto article edit summaries: [[4]] (I was unable to include a list of sample edit summaries here. Please look at the March 3rd edits between 07:48 and 20:03 as examples.

I know it isn't rock solid evidence but I think the pattern of behavior is consistent, the IP location is correct and we are dealing with an editor who is about to come off a 6 month block (and still as two indef topic bans). Springee (talk) 03:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13:, sorry for the long delay in reply. I've been busy and haven't had time to search for a large number of diffs. In this case I was really thinking IP or other material would be the evidence. Since I suspect these edits were as much to antagonize me as anything it's hard to say HughD came back to edit previous articles. The only case I found that I suspect is HughD returning to an old article is this rather innocuous correction by an Amazon Tech IP [[5]]. It's to an article HughD worked on extensively and one that few other editors touched. The edit in question is a "copy edit". Note that HughD does use that exact phrase in his signed in edits. Anyway, I think the suspicion is there but I haven't seen any new edits that I suspect are HughD so perhaps things have past. Lacking forensic type evidence I don't think I've yet presented enough edits to justify additional sanctions on HughD's account so perhaps this should be closed as inconclusive. Thanks. Springee (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Richwales:, I had assumed this was already closed by now. Based on another editor's suggestion I contacted @Wordsmith:[[6]] regarding the IP hounding. I added some additional evidence in late January (about half way down the discussion). The additional evidence were a series of edits with comments and phrasing that match those of HughD (diffs included). I also noted that @DoRD: blocked an Amazon IP editor in December [[7]]. I found this by looking at a list of articles I've edited over the years. In December we had yet another case of an Amazon IP visiting a very low traffic article I was involved with. The Amazon IP visits are still on going. Thanks Springee (talk) 02:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

@Springee: is deleting otherwise reasonable talk page comments by IPs, apparently on the basis that the IP has been determined to be a banned editor.[8][9][10] If the IP editor is actually banned then that's justifiable, but I don't see that determination here. Could a clerk or checkuser finalize this filing so that the IP's status is clear? Felsic2 (talk) 01:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless this investigation is closed with a determination of a policy violation I'll restore the various IP postings and edits that have been disruptively deleted based on the claims here. Felsic2 (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

We don't publicly disclose the IPs of named accounts. CU declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Springee: Can you provide more diffs directly comparing edits of the master and alleged IP socks? I was going to close this no action due to the stale IPs, but if socking did occur, an indefinite block of the master would be warranted. You have to lay down the evidence clearly, though. ~ Rob13Talk 09:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rob, I'm traveling now but I can provide more diffs in a few days. Thanks! Springee (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Any more comments on this case? As it stands, I'm inclined to close it as inconclusive — anyone who disagrees, please speak up. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing case as inconclusive. HughD's block has now expired and the account hasn't started editing but future IP-editing, even if demonstrably from the same user, wouldn't constitute block evasion. Whether the block was evaded using IPs during the time when the account was blocked is something we may never conclusively know. *shrugs* ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

07 March 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]
  1. The first 4 IPs are all based in the Chicago area where HughD appears to be based (see his home page and interests). The rest (almost 40 in all) are Amazon Proxy IPs located aroudn the world.
  2. The editor was targeting low traffic articles I was involved with.
  3. Very similar patterns of editing, comments, RfC formatting, etc. I notified the blocking admin, @The Wordsmith: with my concerns [[11]]. He agreed that it was the "same person beyond a reasonable doubt, per WP:DUCK" [[12]]
  4. The evidence I presented to The Wordsmith is below

35.165.116.166 is using typical HughD boiler plate comments. We have high praise for those whom he agrees with,

(IP)"Thank you for your prodigious research" [[13]]
(HughD)"Thank you for your astonishingly prodigious contributions" [[14]].
(IP)"Exclusion of the proposed content is grossly non-neutral. "[[15]],
(HughD)"Thank you for your contribution. The article is grossly non-neutral..." [[16]]
(IP)"Thank you for your patient efforts to address the neutrality and completeness deficiencies of this article. The above offered advice on this talk page from our colleague offers a way forward:" [[17]] - The quote ends with more HughD hyperbole.

Examples of similar effusive thanking those who agree with his POV.

Thank you for your patient efforts to address the neutrality and completeness deficiencies of this article. The above offered advice on this talk page from our colleague offers a way forward

The quote ends with my HughD hyperbole. As examples of similar phrasing from HughD (in addition to the "thank yous above):

[[18]], "Our colleague had a good idea. Why don't you add it? Hugh (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2015 ", "I see that in reaction to our new colleague's attempt at a contribution, you are scrambling, including moving all mention of heroin out of the "History" section. May I ask, is that an attempt to immunize content... Hugh (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2015 "
[[19]], " It is hoped these two sentences will clarify some not uncommon misreads of WP:IRS and so will promote collegiality at article talk pages. Thank you your support of this reasonable measured and helpful clarification of our project's guidelines for identifying reliable sources from news organizations. Hugh (talk) 04:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)"
[[20]], In two subsequent replies, "This content was recently restored by our colleague Srich32977. This content is discussed here at article talk, above. ... Hugh 15:48, 1 July 2015", "As you know, our colleague Srich32977 and I disagree with you about the neutrality and reliability of Al Jazeera, and in any case, may I humbly repeat Srich32977's earlier salient point, ... Hugh 16:47, 1 July 2015"
[[21]]: " May I ask, do I understand you deleted a neutral, relevant, well-sourced contribution from a colleague, including all four new sources, because you felt it was over-cited? Hugh (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2016", "Sorry, I'm confused. Please explain how you feel WP:COATRACK applies here in justifying your deletion of a neutral, relevant, well-sourced contribution from a colleague. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2016", "I am confused by your strenuous objection to mention of Lyndon B. Johnson, sufficient to delete a neutral, relevant, well-sourced contribution from a colleague. ... Hugh (talk) 00:40, 4 May 2016", "If you deleted a neutral, relevant, well-sourced contribution from a colleague because it gave undue weight to US President ...Hugh (talk) 04:42, 4 May 2016 ", "of a neutral, relevant, well-sourced contribution from a colleague. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2016".

A few more "colleague" examples here [[22]].

Examples of the IPs using similar language from the recent Smith and Wesson talk page:

[[23]]: "some members of a Wikiproject claim a project-level due weight policy which supercedes our project's neutrality pillar."
[[24]]: "On Wikipedia, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Time, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal are generally considered among our most reliable and noteworthy sources. The references offered in this request for comment are a small fraction of the available noteworthy reliable sources that support the above proposed content. Our project's most respected sources are in agreement that..."
[[25]]: "Our project's most respected sources are in agreement that the historic criminal use is a noteworthy aspect of the subject of this article. Considering the breadth of coverage of the subject of this article in noteworthy reliable sources, by far the single most prominent aspect is the relationship between the subject... Exclusion of this noteworthy content is frustrating accurate assessment of the subject's general notability. "


Note the use of "our" when describing Wiki articles or projects

(IP)"Our policy of due weight compels inclusion of the noteworthy..." [[26]],
(HughD)"as per our project's guideline WP:SIZERULE", [[27]]
(HughD)"our project's due weight policy", [[28]]
(HughD)"the basis of our project's due weight policy", [[29]]
(HughD)"We agree our article's coverage of " [[30]].
(HughD)"Our article may not demonize", [[31]]
(HughD)"Our article should not say ", [[32]]
(HughD)"I know you will agree that our first priority in our project is neutrally conveying " [[33]]

In the GM Chapter 11 posting [[34]] IP 35.165 uses a typical HughD practice of including many (excessive) hyperlinks in a talk post. [[35]].

IP 13.112.55.43 specifically references a previous edit of mine[[36]]. HughD was involved in the talk discussion related to that edit.[[37]]

Examples of similar effusive thanking those who agree with his POV.

Thank you for your patient efforts to address the neutrality and completeness deficiencies of this article. The above offered advice on this talk page from our colleague offers a way forward

The quote ends with my HughD hyperbole. As examples of similar phrasing from HughD (in addition to the "thank yous above):

[[38]], "Our colleague had a good idea. Why don't you add it? Hugh (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2015 ", "I see that in reaction to our new colleague's attempt at a contribution, you are scrambling, including moving all mention of heroin out of the "History" section. May I ask, is that an attempt to immunize content... Hugh (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2015 "
[[39]], " It is hoped these two sentences will clarify some not uncommon misreads of WP:IRS and so will promote collegiality at article talk pages. Thank you your support of this reasonable measured and helpful clarification of our project's guidelines for identifying reliable sources from news organizations. Hugh (talk) 04:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)"
[[40]], In two subsequent replies, "This content was recently restored by our colleague Srich32977. This content is discussed here at article talk, above. ... Hugh 15:48, 1 July 2015", "As you know, our colleague Srich32977 and I disagree with you about the neutrality and reliability of Al Jazeera, and in any case, may I humbly repeat Srich32977's earlier salient point, ... Hugh 16:47, 1 July 2015"
[[41]]: " May I ask, do I understand you deleted a neutral, relevant, well-sourced contribution from a colleague, including all four new sources, because you felt it was over-cited? Hugh (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2016", "Sorry, I'm confused. Please explain how you feel WP:COATRACK applies here in justifying your deletion of a neutral, relevant, well-sourced contribution from a colleague. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2016", "I am confused by your strenuous objection to mention of Lyndon B. Johnson, sufficient to delete a neutral, relevant, well-sourced contribution from a colleague. ... Hugh (talk) 00:40, 4 May 2016", "If you deleted a neutral, relevant, well-sourced contribution from a colleague because it gave undue weight to US President ...Hugh (talk) 04:42, 4 May 2016 ", "of a neutral, relevant, well-sourced contribution from a colleague. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2016".

A few more "colleague" examples here [[42]].

The first post of one of the IPs was a clearly formated RfC. Here are similar RfCs HughD has created [[43]], [[44]], [[45]], [[46]], [[47]], [[48]]. Springee (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this IP started prior to the lifting of his edit block (Dec 28th) and includes topics that are political in nature (a violation of his post 1932 US politics, broadly construed, topic ban. This is in addition to be disruptive by editing under multiple IPs and after several of the IPs were blocked. The GM bankruptcy topic[[49]], the GM street car scandal[[50]] and the discussion of guns and crime [[51]] seem like they are very much walking on US politics since all have heavy government involvement. Also, this edit to an article HughD was pushing through to GA status is clearly covered by his climate change topic ban [[52]].

I will add additional reports to cover the remaining IPs. 52.56.71.70, 52.56.94.111, 52.56.78.102, 52.56.96.153, 52.56.89.190, 52.56.88.64, 52.56.100.5, 52.56.102.194, 52.56.102.125, 52.67.203.233, 52.67.216.109, 52.56.34.121, 13.124.3.28, 34.207.97.139, 52.14.85.243, 52.14.16.107, 13.112.65.233, 34.207.97.139, 34.251.129.57, 13.124.3.28, 34.207.97.139, 52.56.171.93, 52.56.140.99 Springee (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update A new Chicago based IP is restoring edits made me the Amazon IP to the Smith and Wesson MP15 article. [[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/162.17.34.129]]

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]


07 March 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Additional IPs related to the investigation above Springee (talk) 03:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

This appears to be mostly a repeat of the previous requests.
Is it clear that the editor behind the IP addressed is even banned from editing Wikipedia? If not, then reverting their edits would be inappropriate.
Either way, I hope this issue can be settled. The constant fighting between Springee and the IP editor is disruptive. I hope the people here can make a determination of what's going on so the reverts can stop. AS I wrote before, pending such a determination I will restore the IP editors contributions when they're deleted solely because of these as-yet unproven allegations. Felsic2 (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the original request lacked the behavioral evidence that The Wordsmith felt was beyond a reasonable doubt. Your accusation makes it sound like I'm the only editor who has found the IP's edits to be problematic. Several editors have objected and one requested page protection due to the IP's disruptions. [[53]] Springee (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, please stop deleting comments and edits until a determination is made that this editor is the same person as HughD and that HughD is banned from editing these topics. Felsic2 (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Felsic2 HughD is indefinitely topic banned from all American Politics topics [54]. Gun control and US gun violence falls clearly into that topic area. (Seraphimblade perhaps your topic ban should be added to Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions to be more easily found). A determination HAS been made, that these IPs are HughD via WP:DUCK by Wordsmith, and those IPs have been blocked as socks. Since he is topic banned, such use of alternate accounts is WP:ILLEGIT, and the comments are subject to summary removal as they were by a topic banned editor. ResultingConstant (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]


07 March 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Additional IPs related to report above Springee (talk) 03:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

@Bbb23:, I would like to ask that a determination be made if this is in fact HughD. Not all of the Amazon IPs have been blocked and more importantly, the IP editor just comes up with new ones each time the old ones are blocked. Also, the IP editor has used several non-Amazon IPs (both a while back as well as just a few days back [[55]] ). If this is HughD then the editor has violated both his edit block as well as his topic block. The Wordsmith, one of the admins who sanctioned HughD, has now twice said he thinks this is HughD [[56]], [[57]]. Given the level of disruption caused by the IP shifting editor and the behavior evidence, please reconsider closing without a decision. Springee (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

Although there are far too many IPs listed in this report and two reports above, it appears that they are all range-blocked or too old. Closing all.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14 June 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Parking_crater&diff=prev&oldid=785586173

Article is Parking crater, full history

user:Cajunerich, user:Rindslicit all suddenly appeared, roughly single-purpose accounts with subject overlap with a rather prolific blocked sock-user, user:HughD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Moicgucci

https://tools.wmflabs.org/guc/?user=Cajunerich Note this is supposedly from Europe. (He has since left this explanation, which, barring something odd coming up here, is quite plausible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rindslicit

(There are very few edits; their contribution lists above contain all the relevant difs, and nothing else.) Anmccaff (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2017 (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]

@Anmccaff: You've demonstrated that the three suspected puppets are interested in the same thing, but you haven't presented any evidence other your say-so ("subject overlap with a rather prolific blocked sock-user") that these three accounts are connected to the master.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd expect that only technical evidence from a checkuser could establish that, or, rather, establish the likelihood of that. Does that have to be separately requested? Anmccaff (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You always have to present evidence that a puppet is connected to the master.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what there is is what there am -at least two accounts appearing from the blue to edit some of Sockie's fave subjects. (Barring other facts appearing, I'll take the third one at his word that he ran across the AfD elsewise.) If that isn't enough to justify checking, then the SPI might be better closed for now. Anmccaff (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21 October 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


HughD was indef banned from conservative politics and envirnomental topics [[58]], then blocked for 6 months for violating that ban [[59]]. After that HughD took to herrasing edits via IP addresses. This was discussed as part of SPIs as well as with admins [[60]], [[61]] and resulted in an indef block of HughD [[62]] which has been violated as late as Sept 3rd. Given the history of IP sock edits, avoiding the block by creating a new account seems reasonable.

EC has only worked on a few topics but all are related to conservative politics and the environment. The two accounts have a significant overlap given EC's narrow list of topics.

The editor is "new" (Aug 18th) yet clearly acts like an experienced editor. The first talk page edits are project links (Aug 29th [[63]]) shortly followed by quoting Wiki guidelines ([[64]], [[65]]) and commenting on requests for adminship (Sept 18th [[66]], Aug 31[[67]]). These sorts of edits suggest an editor who has been around for quite some time. The editor's talk page has been started with the blue "+template" with in the first few edits of the account [[68]]. Many of the blocked HughD IP addresses did the same [[69]], [[70]], [[71]]).

Both editors use a blitz style of edits where many changes are made via a number of small edits rather than a few larger ones. Example with HughD [[72]] (and a comment about it [[73]]) and ECarlisle [[74]], almost 200 edits since Oct 12th. The commenting style is also very similar between the two sets of edits.

The new editor has received two edit related warnings [[75]], [[76]]. Odd that a new editor wasn't phased by such warnings and immediately removed them.

The talk page comments of the two accounts are very similar as is the formatting of proposed changes. Example of formatted argument from HughD [[77]] and [[78]]. Examples from ECarlisle[[79]], [[80]], [[81]] and here [[82]]. Note that this level of formatting was used less than 3 weeks after joining. This is not a new editor!

ECarlisle used a template created by HughD 2 years ago, Template:ProPublicaNonprofitExplorer [[83]][[84]] and used exclusively by HughD. A history of its use (updated Oct 1, 2017) shows 25 examples of use [[85]]. Clicking through to the examples of use, only one example was not placed by the HughD account. It ([[86]]) was placed by one of the large number of Amazon IP's that were blocked during HughD's anonymous harassment campaign since the HughD account was blocked. Earlier today ECarlisle used the template [[87]] ECarlisle has used the template at least four times in October.[[88]][[89]][[90]][[91]]

Upon request I can find text examples that show similar phrasing and comments. Springee (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: ECarlisle seems to have gone dark since this SPI was posted to EC's talk page. EC has posted ~730 times, at least once per day, since Sept 17th and was active just 10 minutes before a notice of this investigation was posted to EC's talk page (last post 18:18 Oct 21 [[92]], posting of notice 18:28 Oct 21 [[93]]). Since then, nothing for over 24 hours. Again this seems like suspicious behavior. Springee (talk) 01:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Update to add PerfectF account name. New editor account as of today (Oct 24th). Immediately comments on Ford Pinto GA review. Complaints here [[94]] and [[95]] are the same arguments made by HughD sock IPs [[96]],[[97]] Springee (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2017 (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]


25 October 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Behavioral, based on comments at Talk:Ford Pinto/GA1 that resemble previous IP contributions attributed to HughD. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Springee updated the earlier filing while I was adding this one. Clerks should feel free to combine/archive as necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • A check user against HughD will be stale for the same reason as above. A check user of PrefectF against ECarlisle might turn up commonality but this can probably be handled via behavioral comparisons. Springee (talk) 01:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

03 November 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


This account is very recent, and does the type of edits that a recently blocked sockpuppet ECarlisle used to do. The edits are comprehensive, well-sourced and well-written on environmental matters, which is unusual on politicians' pages. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC) Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. I think there many be merit to the concerns above. For example the new editor added content about life time environmental score ( had a lifetime score of 6% on the National Environmental Scorecard of the League of Conservation Voters) to several articles [[98]],[[99]],[[100]],[[101]]. The sock ECarlisle added similar content [[102]], [[103]], [[104]], [[105]], [[106]]

I would also add PeopleLikeMe (talk · contribs) as a possible HughD sock. The editor also added the "lifetime score of _" content from above [[107]]. The editor's other edits related to the Chrysler article where HughD had been generally harassing the article based on my involvement. The material PLM restored [[108]] was the subject of a RfC that HughD created [[109]] and content said user added in late March 2016. I will note PeopleLikeMe seems to be a dead account but I found it while looked for the "lifetime" content above.

Both seem like clear socks based on WP:DUCK. Springee (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Springee: thanks for the ping. This quacks like a WP:DUCK. Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force has 23 participants. One of them was HughD, until he was removed. Then ECarlisle signed up for the task force, shortly after registering an account. Then JJJansen signed up, also shortly after registering an account (and after the sockpuppetry block for ECarlisle). It's very unlikely that multiple new accounts would spontaneously be aware of the existence of this very small WikiProject, and think to sign up for it almost immediately upon registering accounts. Then, of course, you have the similar topical interests, edit summaries, editing style. At what point in the "socks who insist on coming back" saga does a Wikipedia:Long-term abuse case get opened up? Marquardtika (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also this. New sock is noting deletion of old sock's work. Yes, that's what happens when you sock. Not very clueful. Marquardtika (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

01 December 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


This is a WP:QUACK situation. One of ANElk's first edits was this edit to the Scott Pruitt page. This edit added the exact same material that a previous sock of HughD, ECarlise, had originally added to the article before it was reverted due to the socking. See this series of diffs. The access dates for the citations are even the same (October 16), meaning this "new" editor apparently just copied and pasted the older sock's edits. ANElk's very first edits to Wikipedia were also to add the templates {userpage} and {usertalk}, which is a trademark of HughD socks. Marquardtika (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2017 (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]

This case is being reviewed by Sir Sputnik as part of the clerk training process. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on their Talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

12 January 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


The new suspected sock is X1\ (talk · contribs). The other accounts are blocked HughD socks. These accounts were all created late summer/fall of 2017. X\1 was created in August. The user account was started with the same start pages HughD used with his recent IP and sock accounts. Like HughD's previous sock accounts we have a "new" editor who immediately knows how to navigate wikipedia editing and is working on templates and tags in less than 48 hours. The editor, like HughD is making a large number of edits per day though not not as single article focused as HughD.

Editor interaction log between HughD and X1\[[110]] shows a lot of articles in common. The focus is on climate change and politics. Edits include HughD hot topics like the Koch bothers.

HughD created a Propublica template (evidence here [[111]]). As I mentioned in a previous investigation it was only used by HughD, known HughD socks and an IP account suspected of being a HughD sock. Here is X1\ editing a propublica template entry [[112]]

HughD had a Chicago related interst. X1\ has edited the Chicago Time article (note, it was a minor edit) [[113]].

Restored material [[114]] added by a block IP suspected of being a HughD sock [[115]]. The IP's added material was similar to the material HughD added to the article. Springee (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please check against previously blocked socks. HughD's account is too old for checking against recent socks.


  • Additional Propublica template edit: [[116]]

X1\'s edit pattern does suggest a strong understanding of Wikipedia for a new account but the inconclusive check user and the reply here is enough to convince me this isn't yet another HughD sock. Springee (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Springee: So are you going to revert your deletion of my edit at ExxonMobil climate change controversy or do you want me to revert you? Or do you want to work together to rewrite the paragraph for what ever reason? X1\ (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the content discussion to the article talk page. Springee (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Please be advised that User talk:X1\ asked for admin help about this, and I advised them to either post here or at WT:SPI. Hopefully, you will get input from them before closing this. — Maile (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am guessing my comments go here, although I am guessing I am not an "other".
@Springee:, Not only are you barking-up the wrong tree, you are in the wrong forest. Your description seems to describe you more than me. Your account did 23 edits your first "day" (Corvette leaf spring, back in 2008) [while I had five (all in my userspace)], with couple hundred edits that year, mostly no edits until 2015 when your account shows over a thousand edits (mostly combustion engine vehicle and fossil-fuel company related articles such as ExxonMobil climate change controversy (you edited 68 times, me four (representing just two edits, mostly this one)); with some politics, such as Chicago-style politics (21 times) and Southern strategy (48 times) both of which I have never edited.
It appears Springee and HughD crossed paths often over fossil-fuel combustion and poltics
Again, not me. The vast majority of my contributions have been at the America-Russia election thing. I have become curious as to Russia's (Putin's) motives, as it seems this interference is really going to blow-up in their face in the long run. Russia's economy is based on global fossil-fuel combustion demand, and Putin's circle appears dependent on off-shoring their acquired funds. Editing has been generally useful to me to attempt to organize the flood of news about this significant subject, and hopefully my "organizing" has been useful to other readers.
It feels User:Springee was very trigger-happy at "ExxonMobil climate change controversy", where I attempted to restore my edit (where I appear to have blindly walked into Springee's hunting grounds). Being relatively new to editing (although a long-time reader, and have attempted to grok to process (obvious failure) before jumping in to editing), I was confused by concurrent User:Slaxjaw/User:Jenuinez tagteaming followed by Springee's mass deletion (which also trawled-in my edit too), so I posted my bewilderment on the Talk page (and quickly forgot about since I didn't get a reply). After months past, with no response, I assumed some kind a inadvertent collateral damage event had occurred and restored some text that contained an edit I did (including an edit summary as to why I did so). @Springee, Why didn't you talk on the Talk page, since we have never communicated. I am attempting to follow BRD. It feels that is why I am really here, as it should be clear I am not HughD or one of their ghosts.
@Springee, I don't know why you appear so reactive to this HughD ghost(s), and I really don't care. One thing is for sure, your sniffer needs to be checked (too much gasoline?) X1\ (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Coffee: So are you going to revert all your deletions of my edits at Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, or do you want me to revert you? X1\ (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Coffee: Revert your reverts of my edits at Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2018 Q1 too. X1\ (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • Springee, it isn't necessary to list socks that are in the archive. We know to look for them there. Thanks. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk endorsed - Well laid-out evidence. Would recommend a behavioural block but check for sleepers. QEDK (桜 ❄ 伴) 19:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Inconclusive.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had blocked the account based on the clerk's comment above, @Bbb23, QEDK, and DoRD: but now the submitter of this SPI has come to my talk page saying they don't believe the editors are the same? Someone with more SPI experience want to push me in the right direction here? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Coffee: I'm not going to get into the behavioral evidence, but I can explain my technical finding. HughD used proxies that hid his location. However, because of the kinds of proxies he used, the UAs were probably his. X1\, on the other hand, edited from a school-related institution, which means that although the location is probably accurate, the UAs are not necessarily as he may be using the school's computers. That means I can't really match up anything between the two users/accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Coffee: Not your fault, I wasn't clear enough; so it's mine. The suspected sockpuppet displayed borderline DUCK behaviour and given the huge amount of intersection, I'd definitely call them almost for sure, a sockpuppet. Since it was technically inconclusive, it does put the evidence to a backseat, atleast to some extent; pending the proof of use of evasive measures such as undocumented personal proxies or so. I have no opinions on the block itself, this is the kind I'd put at the discretion of the blocking admin but if you do find it a mistake basing it on my opinions, I apologize. --QEDK (桜 ❄ 伴) 16:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

18 February 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Sigh... IMAParent joined Wikipedia on the 15th (just 2 days ago). Not surprising that articles related to AR-15's saw a flood of new editors after the recent crime in Florida. However, this editor, like many of HughD's previous socks seems to immediately know how to do things around here. On the first day the editor created their blank user and talk page [[117]]. The edit summaries are very polished for a new editor. They also read a lot like those HughD (and his socks) used. Consider these examples: From the new editor:

"new section: Summarization of multiple noteworthy reliable sources regarding criminal use in mass shootings in the United States"
"sentence order for flow" <-- See June 20th example below
"add summary of a highly noteworthy aspect of the subject of this article as reflected in a reliable source the Loas Angeles Times with wikilinks for relevance and additional ref USA Today for noteworthiness"
"add additional reliable source for noteworthiness and relevance"
"add additional reliable source reference CNN for noteworthiness and relevance"
"add additional reliable source reference for verifiability and noteworthiness and relevance"
"add additional reliable source reference for relevance and noteworthiness"
"summarize relevant reliable source The New York Times"
"add noteworthiness from reliable source and reference" <-- This is the editor's very first post. How many first timers use that sort of edit summary.

From HughD: From Aug 21st 2015, [[118]]

"add significant noteworthy content from secondary and primary sources"
"add significant noteworthy characterization of subject's political views from a reliable source"
"add additional secondary source reference to primary source reference for noteworthiness"
"add significant noteworthy characterization of subject's political views from a reliable source"

Same source, June 20th 2015: "swap sentence order for flow"

From Oct 21 2015, [[119]]

"add additional noteworthy content and additional reliable source reference"
"add noteworthy content from existing rs ref, add additional rs ref"

From 27-28th April 2016: [[120]]

"add relevance and multiple noteworthy reliable source references"
"add relevance and multiple noteworthy reliable source references"

HughD didn't edit gun related articles but his IP socks appeared at the Ruger Mini-14 and Smith & Wesson M&P15 pages (I've noted these in the previous IP sock complaints).

Consider this long post by the current editor to the talk page [[121]] It ends with the phrase:

The article currently grossly fails to neutrally summarize the 2017 USA Today source, drawing out only the NRA's estimate of the number of rifles owned in the US, while conspicuously ignoring the lead of the source: the use in mass shootings. If you oppose the above proposed content, kindly propose an alternative summarization of these noteworthy reliable sources.

This sounds very much like some of HughD's (or sock's) posts. It was proceeded by a dump of sources. Here is a similar example where a HughD sock dumps sources into a GA discussion: [[122]] <-- expand the collapsed section to see the FPrefect edits

Another area in which the article non-neutrally summarizes noteworthy reliable sources is the coverage of the emergence of the controversy.

An IP sock in the Smith & Wesson M&P15 article: [[123]]

Tom Diaz was by far the most noteworthy author cited anywhere in this article', before his point of view, attributed in text as per WP:YESPOV, was deleted. The current article is grossly non-neutral in its biased over-reliance on the manufacturer's website and press releases, and in the systematic exclusion of significant viewpoints from noteworthy reliable sources. The current article admits no controversy, and has no content even vaguely critical, of a highly controversial consumer product. Policy and guideline require balance.

I think this, and the long history of this editor's use of socks, should justify a check user review.

Thank you. Springee (talk) 03:45, 18 February 2018 (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]

20 February 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


This is a very new editor but HughD has already been spotted twice recently. IMAParent was just blocked. @Berean Hunter: blocked Rusty5681 (talk · contribs) as a sock yesterday.

New starts off with an edit that reads very much like a one of HughD's self professing statements. Certainly no new editor is going to think to edit a project page off the bat. I understand this is weaker evidence but given the repetitive nature of this editor I'm suspicious. Springee (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Springee (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2018 (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 February 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


SPA at AR-15 article, same as previous sock, IMAParent. Similar edits. Similar edit tags (not the tags you would expect from a new member). Setup user talk page and home page redirect as IMAParent sock. As with the last sock, the strength of the evidence isn't overly strong but this blocked user has added several known socks in the last two weeks. Example of editors adding same material: [[124]], [[125]]. Washington Post article by Vitkovskaya. Springee (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edits similar to Rusty5681 (talk · contribs) blocked by @Berean Hunter:. Springee (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dlash certainly fits some of the behavioral profiles. Springee (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter:. And Dlash is off to the races. Same scope of articles. Springee (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2018 (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]


01 March 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


The paint hasn't even dried on the last indef unblock. Account is 2 days old and at the same article as Dlash et al. Springee (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC) Springee (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: @Berean Hunter:, would you please apply a page protection while you're at it? Springee (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This account first posted 2 hours after Dlash. Like Dlash the first actions were creating talk and home pages, presumably so those links aren't red and thus suggest a new user. Next is a series of meaningless edits to get over some threshold of edits before diving into the controversial edits. Springee (talk) 03:34, 2 March 2018 (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]


02 March 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


New account, like the past few it was started by establishing user page and talk page (no red links). The only thing this new user has done is promote a sandbox article to a gun related essay. How would a new user know about this essay from around 2016? The IP socks above were involved in some of the articles Felsic2 was working on (AR-15 and other gun related articles). @NeilN: was involved with blocking the IP and responding to Felsic2's questions about the IP editor. Springee (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC) Springee (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2018 (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]

07 March 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Similar behavior as recent socks. New editor, SPA, starts by creating a talk page and a user page that redirects to talk page. Edit summaries are similar. This editor doesn't overlap previous articles but does overlap gun politics. Like HughD, overcites and includes quotes in the references. Springee (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC) Springee (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2018 (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]


08 March 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Back again. Same articles as last blocked editor. Same behavior when establishing account. Springee (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2018 (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]

08 March 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


@NeilN: Same as the last two. Springee (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC) Springee (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2018 (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]

26 March 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Article has been subject to HughD sock editing for a while. New editor with a name that fits the pattern of the previous, recent HughD socks and adds the same content. Springee (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obligatory diffs: [126], [127] Sleepers? --NeilN talk to me 19:09, 26 March 2018 (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]

07 April 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


A previous HughD sock MargeDouglas resurected a sandbox essay that has become WP:GUNCRIME. That editor was blocked by @NeilN:. FlaTeen's first edits are to bring the sandbox page back to life as an essay. This certainly WP:QUACKs. The account went live on Feb 28th and is likely one of a number of sleepers.

The CarmenS16 account hasn't done much but the edit pattern is identical to User:GinaM14 The name also follows the pattern used for a number of the blocked socks. Springee (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC) Springee (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2018 (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]

14 June 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Trying to get the same material into SIG MCX as blocked sock Dlash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did last February (also compare the first edits made by Dlash and this sock...), the name also seems to fit HughD's naming pattern. Dlash isn't tagged as a HughD sock but you'll find him in an archived report in this SPI. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 22:24, 14 June 2018 (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]

 Confirmed to socks in archive. Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

16 July 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


New account started early March, same time frame as blocked accounts CaraL14, GinaM14, AlainaP14. As with others, first post was a talk page "user talk" tag and a user page edit to avoid any red lettering. This one has been editing gun articles and created a new article of questionable notability Ernest E. Moore Jr.[[128]]. Was active as recently as July 12th. Springee (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC) Springee (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN and Bbb23: Springee (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2018 (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]

 Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

22 July 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Same naming pattern as other recent socks. Added material to gun related article. Similar material [[129]] was added by a Chicago based IP [[130]]. New editor who immidiately adds blank edits to their user pages to avoid the red. This sock isn't currently active (last edit just over a month back). Springee (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2018 (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]

 Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


23 July 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Yet another IP account used by this sock. The same gun related edits as previous socks. Chicago based IP addresses. I'm mostly reporting for archive purposes. Here is a diff added by one of the blocked HughD socks [[131]] and here is the same added by the first IP above [[132]] Springee (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC) Springee (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Both IPs have already been blocked by User:Maile66 and User:DoRD respectively.--IanDBeacon (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

30 July 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Same naming pattern as other recently blocked socks. Starts with editing user and talk page to get rid of the red links. Material added to article is similar to material added by HughD socks and IP socks. Springee (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2018 (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]


02 August 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Same pattern as other recent socks. Established with edits to talk page and user page to avoid red links. Edit here [[133]] is very similar to other sock edits [[134]]. Topic area is again gun politics. User name fits the pattern of other recent names. Springee (talk) 12:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC) Springee (talk) 12:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just added AlexS14. Again, same naming pattern. Account starts with 10 trivial edits then edits to username and talk page. Note the naming pattern CaraL14, GinaM14, AlainaP14, LukeHoy15, CarmenS16‎, AlyssaA14, MeadowP18, GuacO17 Springee (talk) 04:03, 3 August 2018 (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]

 Confirmed + ChaseK7 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki).  Blocked and tagged. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


05 August 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Bbb23, sorry, yet another likely sock. New account established around the same time as ChaseK7 and with the same pattern. First edits are to clear the red tags associated with a black user and talk page. First edit is long and relates to a mass shooting. Note the similarities between these edits (suspected sock [[135]], confirmed sock ChaseK7 [[136]]). Springee (talk) 11:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Springee (talk) 11:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added ChrisH49. Similar edit patterns, similar account creation and naming. Springee (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2018 (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]

 Confirmed, blocked and tagged. @Springee: When you file these reports in the future, which I suspect you'll do, please don't sign them; the form does it for you. When you sign them, you end up with a double sig. Thanks. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


06 August 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Another one. Same as the others, starts in May with a new account but no red lettering. Goes for the gun related articles etc. Springee (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And another one. Same story as before but with lots of edits Springee (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added a fresh sock. Active today. All the usual signs. Edit here [[137]] same as previous sock [[138]] blocked by DoRD Springee (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2018 (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]
  •  Clerk endorsed - this is more of a question to the checkusers: these three accounts are obviously sockpuppets, but it seems CheckUser didn't pick them up although several checks have been run very recently. Is there something to that? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

13 August 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Same naming pattern, same way the account was started with edits to get rid of the red. This edit [[139]] is same format as other HughD "proposals" [[140]] and similar to material proposed by IP sock here [[141]]. Springee (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see the editor was blocked as I was posting this.

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]

16 August 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Same username style, splitting material created by another sock into new article Natureium (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2018 (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]

 Confirmed + JackPatches6 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki).  Blocked without tags. The number of socks has become too large. No more tags per WP:DENY. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

19 September 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


This looks like another HughD sock. Started the account with edits to remove red links. So far this account has only edited the Colt's Manufacturing Company page. A short while later a second HughD sock was on the page [[142]]. The added text and the long overcite material at the end read like a HughD edit. Springee (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2018 (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]

06 December 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Filing for information. These accounts were listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/72bikers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:35, 6 December 2018 (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]
-- Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

06 December 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


more disruptions at the NRA article and talk page. Springee (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC) Springee (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2018 (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]

Red X Unrelated, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

09 December 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Another NRA based edit and involving recent material. Given HughD's recent trolling this seems likely. Springee (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC) Springee (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2018 (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]
Historically this wouldn't match HughD's behavior but if you look at the recent HughD socks you will see a change in behavior. This might just be a random NOTHERE editor but we just dealt with some HughD socks so I'm reporting it here. Springee (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: In response to your comments on the user's Talk page, I would call this Red X Unrelated. The user is using proxies, which is atypical of HughD, and the user agents he uses, which are way too common, don't match the user agents of HughD either. I haven't kept track of some of the "recent HughD socks", although Ivanvector has. I'm not going to review Ivanvector's work to see if I agree with his conclusions. For a new CU he appears to be a quick study.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to say the same (I haven't checked but I piggybacked on the logs). Also, second amendment trolls calling their opponents "libtards" can hardly be used as evidence of anything. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 02:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to everyone for looking. The important thing is the editor was blocked. In cases like this would you prefer I just flag the editor for NOTHERE and not worry about the SPI? Springee (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ivanvector, Ureapwhatusow is currently tagged to 72bikers [[143]]. Did you mean Usowwhatureap (talk · contribs)? Springee (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(checks notes) er, no, I've tagged those backwards, and I got them mixed up in the archive too. Working on fixing it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 02:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ivanvector thanks--and please leave a note here and there, esp. on the one that confused us (me) earlier. Who knows how long this may continue. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: I've double-checked and as of this edit everything is accurate. What I wrote in the 72bikers case was accurate all along, but I've clarified in the archives since some accounts were added after I had posted findings. For the record: Usowwhatureap is definitely 72bikers, Ureapwhatusow is probably HughD but can't confirm, and the two do not appear to be related to each other. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector:, I appreciate it--thanks. I appreciate all the work you SPI regulars are doing, both the checking and the paperwork. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

27 December 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Reposting same comments in same place. Is there a way to tie this to an established account? All so far have been new acct creations that get blocked. Legacypac (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added Lookg who was posting same comments but on various obscure articles I've never touched. He pinged me everytime. Legacypac (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC) Added User:Fixlite as obviously same person. Legacypac (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2018 (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]
@GeneralizationsAreBad: I stopped tagging per WP:DFTT but these are all  Confirmed to the editor we believe to be HughD, and this report should be merged to that case. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did it m'self. Closing Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, any reason why we can't just delete that other case? All of the accounts listed there are already listed here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. That was one of the somethings I envisioned.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the assistance linking this troll to HughD. Happy it is all the same user amd I don't have a new troll. Happy New Year. Legacypac (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

01 January 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Same attacks Legacypac (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2019 (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]

04 January 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Same edits as checkuser confirmed socks. Pleade block and rev delete all edits Legacypac (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2019 (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]

18 January 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Slight variations on same trolling edits. Legacypac (talk) 09:47, 18 January 2019 (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]

Reports merged from 72bikers SPI

[edit]
Extended content

03 April 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

72bikers: [144], [145] Rashthing: [146], [147]

72bikers is already blocked for edit warring. I've blocked Rashthing. I'd like a CU done so I can be more sure this isn't a joe job before sanctioning 72bikers further. NeilN talk to me 20:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

@NeilN:,

For what it's worth, this looks like a HughD sock. Not the contents of the edits but the way the account started

  • 19:15, 3 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+9)‎ . . N User talk:Rashthing ‎ (←Created page with 'Talk page')
  • 19:15, 3 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+33)‎ . . N User:Rashthing ‎ (←Redirected page to User talk:Rashthing) (Tag: New redirect)

Here are some HughD sock examples:

AlainaP14 (talk · contribs)

  • 22:31, 8 March 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+13)‎ . . N User talk:AlainaP14 ‎ (←Created page with 'user talk')
  • 22:30, 8 March 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+24)‎ . . N User:AlainaP14 ‎ (←Created page with 'User WikiProject Law')

GinaM14 (talk · contribs)

  • 22:57, 6 March 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+13)‎ . . N User talk:GinaM14 ‎ (←Created page with 'user talk')
  • 22:57, 6 March 2018 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . N User:GinaM14 ‎ (←Created blank page)

CaraL14 (talk · contribs)

  • 23:41, 5 March 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+31)‎ . . N User:CaraL14 ‎ (←Created page with '#REDIRECT User talk:CaraL14')
  • 23:40, 5 March 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+13)‎ . . N User talk:CaraL14 ‎ (←Created page with 'user talk') (current)

MargeDouglas (talk · contribs)

  • 16:45, 22 February 2018 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . N User talk:MargeDouglas ‎ (←Created blank page)
  • 16:40, 22 February 2018 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . User:MargeDouglas ‎
  • 16:39, 22 February 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+36)‎ . . N User:MargeDouglas ‎ (←Redirected page to User talk:MargeDouglas) (Tag: New redirect)

HFalkenberg (talk · contribs)

  • 21:27, 27 February 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+35)‎ . . N User:HFalkenberg ‎ (←Redirected page to User talk:HFalkenberg) (Tag: New redirect)
  • 21:26, 27 February 2018 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . N User talk:HFalkenberg ‎ (←Created blank page)

CDHands (talk · contribs)

  • 22:29, 24 February 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+31)‎ . . N User:CDHands ‎ (←Redirected page to User talk:CDHands) (Tag: New redirect)
  • 22:28, 24 February 2018 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . N User talk:CDHands ‎ (←Created blank page) (current)

Also, the edits are in the area of guns where HughD has been disruptive as of late. Springee (talk) 23:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

Red X Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --NeilN talk to me 22:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

30 August 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


New account that made a single edit, with edit summary "Removing excessive detail that doesn’t belong in this article" that is nearly identical to multiple 3RR violating edits made recently by 72bikers, who is currently blocked for said violation. See 1, 2, 3, all with edit summaries "Removed overly detailed content , this is not a gun article". Waleswatcher (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

I see the similarity in edit summary WW is referring to. However, 72bikers edits to that article have all been focused on the weapons used section (and as it relates to AR-15s and the like). The material in question was in the psychology and drug related problems section. This is an area that 72bikers hasn't previously edited. Springee (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Springee: Look again. Ponyrogue's edit removed precisely the same material in the weapons used section that 72bikers' edits did. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I just saw the initial edit and missed (should have scrolled the screen) the rest of the edited material. I would again note that 72bikers has shown no interest in the psychology part of the article so it seems unlikely he would have removed that material. If the CU comes back negative I would assume this is a different user. Springee (talk) 03:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

23 November 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


A few days after 72bikers block expired, this user showed up with a username which is explicitly directed as an insult at me. Previously, 72bikers was blocked because of their conflict with me. Their only edit other than insults of me on my user talk page is to remove an edit from Waleswatcher with an insulting edit summary - Waleswatcher was another editor who came into conflict with 72bikers on this page. Simonm223 (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2018 (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]

04 December 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


  1. Both users have edited article related to gun control (see recent contributions). 72bikers may be topic banned from gun control.[148]
  2. Both users have used the word "optics" in talk page discussions: 72bikers: "optics of harassment" ; Mikeuralot:"optics of editor bullying"
  3. Both users incorrectly use "there" in place of "their": 72bikers:[149]; Mikeuralot:[150]

Mikeuralot created an account at 1:29 and seven minutes later reverted one of my edits[151] and referred me to the talk page.  Looks like a duck to me. - MrX 🖋 04:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Question for @TonyBallioni:. 72bikers is under a gun topic ban but are any of the sock accounts related to 72bikers violating that ban? For my own understanding, I was under the impression that alternative accounts are "allowed" but given a number of rules. At least two are no crossing paths (sock) and no evading. Unless 72bikers was currently subject to a block were they violating EVADE? I'm asking rather than anything else. Springee (talk) 05:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Springee, individuals who are currently subject to active sanctions are specifically forbidden from having clean start by the clean start policy. This is based off of WP:SCRUTINY: the fact that someone is under sanctions in one area means that they have at least some history of disruptive behavior that the community, or an administrator in the case of AE, views as needing additional restrictions. Having multiple accounts prevents the community from scrutinizing the actions in light of the relevant sanctions. That, plus the fact that there are two accounts with edits and one sleeper really makes it hard to justify in these circumstances. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I can see the concern regarding scrutiny. If 72biker ever tries to have the ban lifted I think it should be noted that they did not (so far as has been found here) violate the gun topic ban. Springee (talk) 05:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
72bikers used the Usowwhatureap account to edit the NRA page - in violation of their tban [154] - the other accounts were principally used for pestering me at pages unrelated to firearms that I edit. Simonm223 (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223:, it's somewhat hard to follow but it appears that most of these accounts belong to HughD. For instance, the one that trolled you here [[155]] and the one setup to troll Legacypac were all HughD accounts. HughD had been the random Chicago based IP editor who had trolled a number of gun related topics (example [[156]]). It appears they changed their tactic. Rather than trying to flood the articles with, and please forgive me for using the term, "more about the crimes" content they would attack the "more about the crimes" editors (that isn't a great descriptor but I think we can agree that we do seem to have a bifurcated population of editors when we guns and politics intercept). Pure speculation but perhaps HughD went after you because you are actually very level headed and open to compromise. They hoped to poison the well then we have more fights. What better way than to get people to blame 72bikers. Springee (talk) 04:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll just use the helpful group 1 and 2 lists provided by the admins and clerks on this thread as a guide to which of the socks harassing me were 72bikers and which were HughD. At this point I hope neither of them returns to this project. At all. Ever. Simonm223 (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly HughD will return. Springee (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...in less than an hour. Springee (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully 72bikers decides to stay away then regardless. The accounts that have been linked to them have accounted for enough hounding of me that I'd rather not have to deal with their nonsense ever again. Simonm223 (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given my username's inclusion in one of the socks and 72bikers banning me from their talk and then trash talking me there with Springee, and that I had a big part in getting 72bikers topic banned, I'm not convinced this is not 72bikers. Not sure who else fits the bill. Weird. Legacypac (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LP, please stop casting aspersions. I have not "trash talked you " on 72 bikers's talk page. This is the second time today you have made such a claim. Please review WP:CIVIL. Springee (talk) 05:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni:, could you confirm that this struck comment was one of the HughD socks? [[157]] I agree with @MrX:'s efforts to strike the sock comment but I think they listed the wrong master. Thanks, Springee (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni:, I don't see that a CU tied Mikeuralot to HughD. It looks like it tied him to other user accounts. Also, the behavior evidence tying Mikeuralot to 72bikers is very strong. Some clarity is needed. - MrX 🖋 16:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MrX, Berean Hunter's comment below was referencing the group 2 accounts as a technical match to HughD, and his subsequent email to me about it did as well. I'll let him speak to it if there are more questions, but that is what I was going off of when I replied to Drmies. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Berean Hunter seems to have the keys to this mystery. There seems to be evidence that HughD and 72bikers might be the same user, if we look at behavior and CU data.- MrX 🖋 17:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I was a non-CU clerk looking at the behavioural evidence alone, I would very much agree with you, and indeed I have blocked a few of these accounts without bothering to figure out exactly who they are. However, there are very good technical indicators that the two groups are not the same person. We have five or six checkusers agreeing on that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I never checked anything but group 2 which I believe is HughD. I concur that either some form of cooperation is occurring or impersonation.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Without a doubt I think this is impersonation. Having edited with both HughD and 72bikers the personalities, interests etc are too different. The grammar is too different. The understanding of the rules are too different. Also, look at the histories. Basically no editorial overlap despite at least a year of time when both were active editors [[158]]. What the editors liked, disliked etc was just too different. Also, why would HughD start such an active sock, focused on motorcycles, during a time when HughD's account was in good standing? HughD was focused on climate change, politics and Chicago. I don't think 72bikers has ever worked in those areas. As I said here [[159]], the likelihood that these two editors would have a sock or meat puppet relationship doesn't make sense. The behavior evidence just doesn't fit at all when you look back at the histories of the two accounts. At the same time, based on behavior evidence it would seem obvious that Usowwhatureap is the same master as Ureapwhatusow. The creation and activities of the two accounts are about 30 minutes apart. What are the odds that 72biker just happened to be on line at the same time and happened to decide to restore material that HughD was spamming. Conversely, repeatedly posting the same content from many accounts is stereotypical of HughD socks. Ultimately the only conclusion I can reach is that something is wrong with the tech data and 72bikers is Usow... or Ureap... Given the general animosity towards 72bikers and the 3 accounts that were linked to 72bikers I suspect no one is going to much care if 72bikers takes the blame for a HughD sock. If they don't ask for their block to be lifted then it doesn't much matter. If they ask then this single sock account would likely prevent an unblock. The community is far less likely to forgive sock based attacks on other editors. Springee (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm the only one out of all of us that did check both groups, and probably have checked them multiple times this week. The CU data for the accounts matched to group 1 are identical to 72bikers. Not just similar, not by connecting the dots or by a stretch of the imagination, identical. The only way I can reasonably fathom that someone other than 72bikers created those accounts is if 72bikers invited that person over to their location and let them use the same device, which is nonsense since that other person (or who we think the other person would be) was also using a completely different device several hundred miles away at the same time. Springee, I have a lot of respect for your trust in this person and disbelief at what's occurred, and it is likely that group 2 is latching on to a dispute they weren't already involved in to stir up trouble and impersonating group 1 in the process, but group 1 is 72bikers and they are not innocent. I'm sorry, but you need to stop beating this particular horse, it's quite dead. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

04 December 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Didn't relize socks using the signature of the master was a thing. Would probably make things a lot easier if it caught on. GMGtalk 16:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And a new sock Narcasiskiller (talk · contribs). I've opened an investigation here [[160]] but I'm reporting this here given the overlap. Springee (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Here is yet another new sock Ureapwhatusow (talk · contribs). Are we sure the other one is a 72bikers vs HughD? It seems like HughD is the active editor. Springee (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

Ivanvector, this is HughD, right? Drmies (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Springee: I agree with Bbb23: while we figure this out, it's not necessary to report accounts in both places. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

25 January 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Repeating same gross insults as previous CU confirmed socks Legacypac (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2019 (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]


28 January 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Similar attacks as previous CU confirmed socks Legacypac (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

@Ivanvector:, is there new CU information to tie this to 72bikers? I would assume so but I wanted to ask given my previous reservations and historical interactions with both accounts. Thanks! Springee (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • I came across this from somewhere else. Checkuser results today confirm what has long been suspected: 72bikers and HughD are the same user.
The following accounts are  Confirmed to the technical data of both cases:
@Springee: yes, but I can't really say any more. I would say it was sophisticated WP:GHBH except that HughD's evidently not very well versed in good-hand behaviour. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So 72bikers and HughD really are the same person after all. I played a role in getting 72bikers blocked around his activity at the NRA page so now I know why HughD socks are on my case. Thanks. Legacypac (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

30 January 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Same old same old As CU confirmed Legacypac (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2019 (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]

04 February 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Reposting same material Legacypac (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Named confirmed socks posted the same material elsewhere as this IP posted on my talkpage. 100% related. Legacypac (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the same attacks a couple times before before posted but I believe they were rev deleted. Might have been posted to a Giantsnowman Arb Case page and some other random page. Thinking about it they were also by an IP. This may be a different troll on reflection, but operating along a similar vein. Don't sweat it if not a match. The posts are fantastical enough they speak for themselves. Legacypac (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2019 (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]
@Legacypac: based on the archive, previously suspected IPs consistently geolocate to one location, while this IP is on a different continent. Would you be able to provide diffs comparing this IP's edits to a confirmed sock? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it's a different known LTA, not HughD. They've already moved on to another IP, so re-closing with no further action. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


05 February 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Same posts as other socks Legacypac (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2019 (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]

Account now blocked. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12 February 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Same attacks. This time at AN Legacypac (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Add another one blocked at AN just for the record. Legacypac (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2019 (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]

26 February 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Same old same old attack post Legacypac (talk) 02:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

The posts by this sock are close variations of ones by previous confirmed socks of HughD/72bikers. There is no way it is some random other user so they found a way around the measures User:Ivanvector placed. The guy is so lame. Legacypac (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It could just be a copycat. That loser has been spamming their messages onto enough random pages that maybe some other troll saw and thought it'd be funny. Regardless, the subject is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Simonm223 (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

Red X Unrelated to the master but I've blocked them as NOTHERE for now. DeltaQuad, would you take a look? Your comment about remembering the cu data for BCD is encouraging because this could be him based on behavior and the cu log. All of his confirmed socks have gone stale so a good memory would be helpful here.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Berean Hunter: Yesterday wasn't a good day for me. I missed the key part of your question, which was about BuickCenturyDriver. The data is old, but based on the users I checked, BCD's user agents never included those used by Narcpac, etc.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I sent another sock to ARV an hour ago. Same MO. Legacypac (talk) 05:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16 March 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Usual legacypac nonsense Qwirkle (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2019 (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]
Confirmed accounts are  Blocked and tagged. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06 April 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Springee has accused this editor of being a HughD sock, removed comments [161][162][163][164] based on that assessment and labelled the IP as a suspected sock [165][166]. If we're going to label an editor as a suspected sock, it should be supported by a sockpuppet investigation.

I will leave it to Springee to provide diffs and evidence. –dlthewave ☎ 20:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Since this was opened I will add a few other IPs that have been active in the last month. Tagging these as suspected makes it easier to revert edits per EVADE in the future.

The IP in question per DUCK. This is also a block editor who targets my contributions to WP:HOUND me. See NeilN's comments regarding the hounding issue [[167]]. Because this issue involves a long term pattern of HOUND I would like the IP editors tagged so the edits can be removed without question. This explains why an IP address just happened to find the OpEd article I was involved with.

Like the other non-Amazon proxy IPs, this one is in the Chicago area. It was previously used in 2017 to sock edit the S&W M&P15 article (added same content as Amazon proxy IP, more below), I tagged it in 2017 as part of a rash of Amazon and Chicago IP edits by HughD.

IPs currently listed as HughD suspected are either Chicago area or Amazon proxy

Extended content

[[168]]. Chicago area also listed in previous investigations

2017 [[169]], [[170]], [[171]], [[172]],
2018 [[173]]. [[174]] - AR-15s and project firearms. [[175]] - semi-auto rifles. [[176]] - a number of gun related articles.

Over the past two years or so several admins including NeilN, @Yamla:, @DoRD: have blocked various IP's suspected to be used by HughD. Not all are tagged as HughD vs just blocked.

The IP in question posted two comments to the Signpost OpEd article. This is an obscure place to just show up. The IP has very few edits but was previously used to add material to the Smith & Wesson M&P15 page.

17 March 2017 an Amazon proxy IP added content to the Smith & Wesson M&P15 article that included,"With the February, 2006 first shipment of the M&P15 tacticle rifles, Smith & Wesson president and CEO Michael F. Golden said"[[177]].
21 March the IP in question adds virtually the same content, "according to Smith & Wesson president and CEO Michael F. Golden at the time of the February 2006 first shipment." [[178]]. This ties the current Chicago area IP to an round of sock edits that involved both Chicago area and Amazon proxy IPs.

In the 2017 time period when the IP in question was used, a number of HughD related socks were active and many blocked. As an example here is the list for the Smith & Wesson M&P-15 article and talk page. Note this is a rather obscure article. The intent here is to show the current IP editor fits the profile per WP:DUCK

S&W M&P-15 Talk page

107.77.207.197[[179]] - Chicago area, currently blocked by @Berean Hunter:. Also active on AR-15 article.
198.251.23.11[[180]] - Same story as above. @Drmies: blocked this one. Brean Hunter currently has it blocked.
2001:BC8:4400:2100:0:0:1D:D03[[181]] - Similar story but a proxy adding the same content as the two above. Reverted by NeilN
99.44.159.17[[182]] - A year later but same story Chicago and all, NeilN blocked.
206.173.104.214[[183]] - same story.
24.12.186.186[[184]] - same story, October 2018 - Blocked by @Ivanvector: as HughD sock.
107.77.207.37[[185]] - Chicago area - currently blocked by Berean Hunter
2603:300A:1601:C500:A86B:49C1:DB3D:543A[[186]] - chicago area, blocked by @Mifter:

S&W M&P-15 Article:

66.244.177.122[[187]] - active just 2 days ago. Chicago area, no block history. Edit summary similar to many HughD summaries, see examples from previous blocks here [[188]]

Because no single IP is used that much typically the edits are reverted and we move on. However, since a recent reversion was challenged I would like to note these additional recently active IP addresses: Recently active sock IPs ( less than two month old )

I'm not asking for a block but if they are added to the list of suspected socks it would be helpful when editors who aren't familiar with HughD's behavior question removals. Springee (talk) 04:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23:, given the effort I put into compiling the evidence I would appreciate if you would at least look at this to see if it appears likely that the IP in question is the same editor as used it in 2017 and that the 21 March edit is the same content as the 17 March edit. Springee (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • If anyone ever want to read this in the future, fine. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Springee, I don't usually agree with Bbb but in this case they got a point. I don't really know what we're trying to do here--there's an IP who you think is HughD but two edits is all we're about here, and the post you've been trying to remove is ... just ... well not worth it, IMO. Drmies (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15 June 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


I suspect this is another HughD sock. If nothing else the way the account came into being looks like a fairly typical EVADE behavior. The account, like a number of previous HughD socks, started with a user name that was a Name-number combination. The first edits were to the home page and talk page to remove the red links. Then it was to a politically controversial topic. As HughD has often targeted articles I'm involved with (see the earlier complaints) it's possible that is why they chose this article and the content in question. The edit rational also seems HughD like, "add to notability with sources". HughD and socks typically do an appeal to notability/weight to get material included in an article when consensus doesn't agree that weight favors inclusion. I will admit I'm less certain than normal that this is a HughD sock but I think the behavior is clear EVADE. Springee (talk) 01:21, 15 June 2019 (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]

11 June 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

User is exhibiting the same kind of editing pattern on List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019, in regards to making the same edits as Casualeditorunder did. Dif 1 (by Casualeditorunder) Dif 2 (by Tomcaly) – Braxton C. Womacktalk to me! 04:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User in question is also using an IP address (174.159.227.3) to edit on the article and its talk page. Dif 1 Dif 2 – Braxton C. Womacktalk to me! 16:36, 12 June 2019 (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]

 Confirmed, blocked master for 72 hours and indeffed the sock.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19 August 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Both accounts are being used for the sole purpose of harassing me, leaving strange comments with my signature. This is typical HughD behavior and warrants a block in any case.

Mindyourownb: [198][199]

Rainorshine113: [200] –dlthewave ☎ 02:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

This doesn't really seem like the HughD behavior I've observed over the years but it certainly seems like an editor who is trying to antagonize Dlthewave. That said, I did see some recent IP editor activity that looked to be typical HughD so the timing would check out. HughD or not the two accounts should probably be blocked as NOTHERE Springee (talk) 02:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

 Confirmed to the Tomcaly group and likely to 72bikers as stated in the archive. To be clear, this is in the same location as HughD:

 Blocked and tagged.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 10:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

27 August 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

User name fits the format of many other HughD socks. User started with a edit to their own user page then added content to the NRA article with edit tags similar to previous HughD edits. Springee (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of similar names used by this sock CaraL14, GinaM14, AlainaP14, LukeHoy15, CarmenS16, AlyssaA14, MeadowP18, GuacO17, CharB6, AlexS14, MadHsu6, ChrisH49, AaronF37, DanBar7, IAMGreen6, HelenaR17, DylanHock6, JessL6, JaimeG14, OliviaEn6, Kimsong7, EmParker6, GymMat6, CatherineH6, GMcD6

Springee (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this is still a HughD sock. Per the CU we know the location is consistent. The behavior and account naming is also consistent. The way the user setup their home page with a single project link and opened the account in Aug 2018. Same as those listed below:

I think the DUCK evidence is very strong in this case. Springee (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2019 (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]

13 October 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

This account opened like several other recent socks. The first edits are adding a link to a random project then a follow on by adding edits to the home and talk page to remove the red. Additionally, HughD’s previous socks have targeted the Ford Pinto article. See these previous filings as an examples of both [[204]],[[205]]. The following HughD socks all created pages with project links [[206]] [[207]] [[208]] [[209]] [[210]] [[211]] [[212]] [[213]]

Springee (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC) Springee (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2019 (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]

 Confirmed, blocked, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04 November 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


This is looking like yet another HughD sleeper account. The account was created in April with edits to user and talk page but no additional edits. Now, months later the editor just happens to post their 3rd ever post to a policy talk page. The near 5k post is a long diatribe [[214]] in reply to a WP:V talk page discussion I'm involved with. The tone is very much HughD with phrasing like "our neutrality pillar". As noted in previous reports to socks, HughD was fond of using phrasing such as "our article" "our guidelines" etc. As in many cases Hughd doesn't address me personally but does try to address my arguments in an oblique fashion. As always, any time a "new" editor shows up and talks about policy in detail on a talk page of a WP policy we should be suspicious. This isn't the behavior of a "new" editor. Springee (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC) Springee (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2019 (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]

04 December 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

WP:DUCK. Re-adding same wording of blocked account Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2019 (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]

 Clerk assistance requested: Please move this to the correct case.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Sro23 (talk) 03:57, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14 December 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

User name "SeriousContributor" is a reference to recent trolling and socking by other HughD socks, specifically this sock created out of anger for the blocks of Generl_flipper, Allthetime123456, Hit a couple corners and Mans infinite search of knowledge.

The aw-shucks-I'm-a-noob pose is typical of how HughD introduces a new account[215] A perfectly formatted image, even including such WP:GA sticking points like image alt text, is pretty strong evidence of someone with years of editing experience, not a new user as claimed. This change is further evidence of a pretty sophisticated understanding of Wikipedia formatting, and the realization that they were putting a little too fine a point on their feud with me personally. The almost-boilerplate "in focus, not altered or retouched, properly cropped, and there is no underlying copyright violation" is something a veteran editor would say, with knowledge of picture criteria. The "the user who deleted the photo has one of his own photos uploaded that forms part of the Monster article" is one of this sockmaster's obsessions, accusing others of owning articles.

There's pretty good odds that the IP address will be geographically distant from other socks, as has been the case before.

I should mention for the record, that the edit summary "added a missing image of a special edition S4R" and the talk comment "here is currently no image of this model of the Monster range (the S4R)," is nonsense. The lead image File:Ducati Monster S4R S Tricolore 2008.jpg is a special edition S4R. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:40, 14 December 2019 (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]

Red X Unrelated and no other socking seen in the range.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

31 December 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Same obsession with Kawasaki Ninja ZX-12R. Same pattern of throwaway accounts created to fuss over this article. Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:11, 31 December 2019 (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]

19 April 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Look at these behavioural similarities:

"the analysis itself is not noteworthy without further description of findings or significance" as an edit summary, let me ask you: Before or during your deletion of another editor's contribution, including several important new reliable sources, did it cross your mind, however briefly, that this might be an edit in progress, especially, knowing as you do, that the contributor is an experienced editor, with a record of good articles, and this contribution was only a few hours old? Hugh (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC) [217]

  • HughD is challenging the editor, claiming misjudgement of edits. He does this a lot more times, see Hugh's talk and you will find things like this all over the place.

HJ Mitchell - "Removing 10k characters of sourced prose from an article isn't vandalism?" No, it isn't. It wasn't the best way to deal with a content issue and was pretty stupid, but as my edit summaries and talk page comments show, it was exactly what Wikipedia:Vandalism says that vandalism is not. "I will not lift the block as I believe it necessary to prevent further vandalism." that is entirely up to you, and I agree the block calmed things down - wrong block, right outcome. "If anything, I might make it longer." again, that is your call - however, that would seem very much like an Admin who was very busy tagging everything as vandalism and blocking people, not looking carefully enough at the edits, having their mistaken claims of vandalism pointed out to them, and then not responding promptly as required by WP:ADMINACCT when asked about it. I have no desire to even look at the article in question again, I've said what I think on the subject and would rather work on other articles. But, if you think it's right to extend the block because you are upset that I criticized your judgement, then I won't complain. 136.158.59.173 (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC) [218]

  • Yup. Again, claiming the editor is wrong, this time with more 'trollish' language. Note that Dodge Tomahawk's edit history has evidence of edit warring, so a block would still be in force even without actual vandalism.

Basically, they are always quoting the other person's statements and then using technicalities to 'refute' the argument. At least that's what I see. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1!11!! (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2021 (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]

06 December 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Pro forma, mostly just filing to put this back on our radar. Berean Hunter blocked this IP for 3 years in 2018. As it was a CUblock of an IP, no master was specified, but it's clear from surrounding context that HughD was the master. After the block expired, the IP returned, showing the same interest in mass shootings and using the same edit summary style. Rare to see a duck go a thousand edits on an IP that's already been sockblocked once, but, a duck this is nonetheless. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 16:56, 6 December 2022 (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]

13 January 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

This user seems very interested in mass shootings, just as observed with the IP sockpuppet 76.198.24.189 (talk · contribs). Their edit summaries are also similar, in the sense that they use the plus (+) sign to indicate the addition of materials ([219] [220]) and their peculiar way of starting said summaries ([221] [222]). In addition, when they joined in August 2022, this user is already creating code and a sandbox, as well as using WP:PRIT ([223]) and WP:HOTCAT ([224]), indicating an immediate familiarity with Wikipedia.

Unless I'm missing something here, all of what I noticed is most certainly suspicious to me. Love of Corey (talk) 03:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The geographic location is consistent with those from the past. I also agree regarding the edit summaries. Springee (talk) 12:32, 16 January 2023 (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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/HughD/Archive&oldid=1134751233"