Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MidnightBlueMan/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


MidnightBlueMan

MidnightBlueMan (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date December 7 2009, 23:36 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Þjóðólfr
[edit]

Dangerous Temujin has been blocked as a sock Here. Dangerous Temujin has twice appeared to continue MBM's edit wars. Hydroporus palustris (When 3RR was in operation) Battle of Jersey (1RR restriction) and, in my view, in DT's short wiki life he never extended his vocabularly further MBM's stock phrases of Correct/Incorrect/wrong. While it was possible that AN Other could be shadowing myself or MBM; those others continued to edit during the heated atmosphere in the 24 Hours after both DT & myself were blocked. MBM Did not edit for 24 Hours. While MBM is quite happy to kick up a fuss about unfounded accusations, he has not denied it. I would like the opportunity to found my accusations or apologise. Þjóðólfr (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
[edit]
CheckUser requests
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: D (3RR using socks )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Þjóðólfr (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
Conclusions
[edit]

information Administrator note Combined with the behavioral evidence, I do believe that Dangerous Temujin is MidnightBlueMan, and I have blocked the latter for 1 month for sock puppetry. All accounts appropriately tagged. MuZemike 20:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
06 June 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]
Evidence submitted by UnknownThing
[edit]

This ANI thread seems to be getting personal. Both users have been reported to ANI as they seem to be assisting each other with reverts to British Isles. Mister Flash and Bjmullan had yesterday been in some conflict over BJ's edit to Enceladus (moon), that is where I discovered the issue between these users when Mister Flash left a message on my talk page after I reverted Flash for reverting Anthony.bradbury at WP:AIV. I looked at Flash's talk page and discovered this ANI issue. Later on today in the ANI thread, BJ accused Mister Flash of sockpuppetry. MidnightBlueMan and Mister Flash are allegedly British, see here and here, and as they are accused of assisting each other, I think a CU may be needed to settle this issue. (Though I'm not too sure whether a check is required on Bjmullan or not.) UnknownThing (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems both users (as well as Bjmullan) have been breaching 3RR on the same article [1], [2], [3]. I'm adding Bjmullan as a suspect as well as the evidence looks somewhat convincing so I think he could use a confirmation check.UnknownThing (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may be able to find some more evidence via the ANI thread. UnknownThing (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed Bjmullan as the log shows the account was created in 2005 [4] and MBM and MF were both created in 2008. [5][6] UnknownThing (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence submitted by HighKing
[edit]

There appears to be a great deal of suspicious activity from these two editors with high levels of cooperation and reversions with an eye on trying to. Most of their editing appears to be reversions, and on the same articles. For example, on 22nd March, I noted the following activity: Mister Flash:

  • 20:41, 22 March 2010 (hist | diff) Carried to Dust ‎ (Undid revision 351410854 by HighKing (talk)Reference put back) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
  • 18:27, 22 March 2010 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Rivas ‎ (→Colin Rivas)
  • 18:05, 22 March 2010 (hist | diff) Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples ‎ (→Review)
  • 18:02, 22 March 2010 (hist | diff) Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples ‎ (→Review)
  • 17:54, 22 March 2010 (hist | diff) Carried to Dust ‎ (Undid revision 351255762 by HighKing (talk)You canot delete referenced material simply becasue you don't like British Isles)
  • 17:53, 22 March 2010 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Rivas ‎

MidnightBlueMan

  • 20:53, 22 March 2010 (hist | diff) User talk:MidnightBlueMan ‎ (→Blocked User)
  • 20:47, 22 March 2010 (hist | diff) Christianisation of Iceland ‎ (Undid revision 351430714 by HighKing (talk)No need. Edit was made by blocked user.)
  • 20:46, 22 March 2010 (hist | diff) Atlantean (documentary series) ‎ (Undid revision 351430235 by HighKing (talk)No need. Edit was made by blocked user.)
  • 20:46, 22 March 2010 (hist | diff) Calcutta Cricket & Football Club ‎ (Undid revision 351430299 by HighKing (talk)No need. Edit was made by blocked user.)
  • 20:45, 22 March 2010 (hist | diff) Canterbury–York dispute ‎ (Undid revision 351430418 by HighKing (talk)No need. Edit was made by blocked user.)
  • 20:45, 22 March 2010 (hist | diff) Larix kaempferi ‎ (Undid revision 351430458 by HighKing (talk)No need. Edit was made by blocked user.)
  • 20:44, 22 March 2010 (hist | diff) The Amateur Championship ‎ (Undid revision 351430498 by HighKing (talk)No need. Edit was made by blocked user.)
  • 20:43, 22 March 2010 (hist | diff) Settlement of Iceland ‎ (Undid revision 351430536 by HighKing (talk)No need. Edit was made by banned user.)
  • 19:55, 22 March 2010 (hist | diff) Settlement of Iceland ‎ (Undid revision 345974966 by 84.19.169.162 (talk))
  • 19:55, 22 March 2010 (hist | diff) The Amateur Championship ‎ (Undid revision 350226728 by 84.19.169.162 (talk))
  • 19:54, 22 March 2010 (hist | diff) The Amateur Championship ‎ (Undid revision 350227296 by 84.19.169.162 (talk))
  • 19:53, 22 March 2010 (hist | diff) Larix kaempferi ‎ (Undid revision 351167441 by 89.100.43.141 (talk))
  • 19:53, 22 March 2010 (hist | diff) Canterbury–York dispute ‎ (Undid revision 350229558 by 84.19.169.162 (talk))
  • 19:52, 22 March 2010 (hist | diff) Calcutta Cricket & Football Club ‎ (Undid revision 350229797 by 84.19.169.162 (talk))
  • 19:51, 22 March 2010 (hist | diff) Atlantean (documentary series) ‎ (Undid revision 351149317 by 109.255.114.113 (talk))
  • 19:51, 22 March 2010 (hist | diff) Atlantean (documentary series) ‎ (Undid revision 351149121 by 109.255.114.113 (talk))

So basically, MF logs on at around 17:53, and reverts some of the stuff that was being discussed on the SE page, and stops editing at 18:27. MBM immediately logs in and does a series of reverts. I found it very suspicious that Flash logged in for a single edit at 20:41, then a resumption of reverting by MBM at 20:43. Similar patterns can be observed on other days, most recently on May 30 and June 1. There is also evidence of tag teaming such as the recent activity at Enceladus (moon), Britain's Strongest Man, and Cowboy. Wikistalk also shows a great deal of convergence between their editing. They have never been logged in at the same time with overlapping edits, which might indicate an attempt to avoid detection. --HighKing (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]

User:UnknownThing, who appears to be the only contributor to this, was very recently blocked as a sockpuppet of banned user GEORGIEGIBBONS. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a tad confused, are those MBM & MF accounts coming from the same bloke? GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Midnight is a sock of Flash and there have been socks before. --Snowded TALK 15:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect there's a third sock too. But, I'll keep that under raps for now. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: D  + E (3RR using socks and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by UnknownThing (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Confirmed They do indeed edit one at a time, but there's little doubt to me that Mister Flash (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and MidnightBlueMan (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) are operated by the same user. Cool Hand Luke 04:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking for some more review by other checkusers. Please stand by. Cool Hand Luke 04:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After consulting with other checkusers, I will call this match technically  Likely. The behavioral evidence seems quite strong to me. Cool Hand Luke 12:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Does this have any relation to the accounts mentioned in WP:Sockpuppet investigations/HighKing (specifically, LowHigh and LowKing)? TNXMan 13:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, those two accounts are Red X Unrelated to MF/MBM, although they are clearly socks of each other. Cool Hand Luke 13:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
information Administrator note OK. Based on the previous investigation, as well as this investigation, it appears the MBM is a sock of MisterFlash and that at least one other sock account has been created (see archive). Accordingly, I've blocked both accounts indefinitely. Marking as closed. TNXMan 14:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
25 June 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Footyfanatic3000
[edit]

To start off, the fact that LevenBoy could be a MidnightBlueMan sockpuppet was brought to my attention by GoodDay here.

As one can see from LevenBoy's contributions, his edits are very similar to that of MidnightBlueMan's and Mister Flash's, which is to enforce the usage of the term British Isles. Also, as HighKing points out here, LevenBoy starting editing on British Isles almost instantly after MidnightBlueMan and Mister Flash were blocked for sockpuppetry. I would highly doubt that all of this is a coincidence.

Therefore I would like to request a CheckUser to confirm whether or not these edits are coming from the same person. --Footyfanatic3000 (talk  · contribs) 00:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]

The best way to end any suspicions is to run a SPI. If one's innocent, he/she has nothing to fear. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with GoodDay, you needn't worry if you happen to be innocent :) --Footyfanatic3000 (talk  · contribs) 19:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, not sure who's going to be working on this. I have info that I'd like to email to the clerk. Let me know how I can do this, thank you. --HighKing (talk) 22:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the behavioural evidence I submitted, I would say it overwhelmingly points to WP:DUCK, regardless of the CU result. Can others who have seen the behavioural evidence comment? --HighKing (talk) 11:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Should I make the behavioural evidence available here? --HighKing (talk) 11:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After taking a closer look at the accounts, I'm fairly sure that LevenBoy is in fact a sock of MidnightBlueMan, despite the CU result. The similarities are quite strong. It may also be worth taking a look through this editor's SPI archive. Dangerous Temujin was blocked as a sock of MidnightBlueMan based on technical evidence, as a CU proved inconclusive. Also note that the decision to block Mister Flash was taken primarily due to behavioural evidence.

I think that a closer look into this is needed. --Footyfanatic3000 (talk  · contribs) 23:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure that Coren has received the information. Any progress on this please? --HighKing (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you've got evidence put it here!! At least have the decency to allow me to refute it. And don't hide behind excuses such as ip privacy. You DO NOT have any details of my ip address, and any other addresses can be x'd out. LevenBoy (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the clerks on this case are happy for the information to be made public, I've no problem publishing (although it may just result in "teaching" detection-avoidance). Please indicate if this is OK. --HighKing (talk) 11:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

You may email me if you have something to show me in private. –MuZemike 01:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed –MuZemike 00:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any updates on the case yet? --Footyfanatic3000 (talk  · contribs) 21:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Unlikely — Coren (talk) 04:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Placing SPI case on hold pending some further developments regarding some of the private evidence I have received. Coren, you may be getting an email in your direction. –MuZemike 17:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I am leaning towards closing this case with no further action taken per the additional confirmation below; if something would have came up, it would have by now. –MuZemike 00:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


10 July 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]
Evidence submitted by HighKing
[edit]

Another sock. New editor pops up, intimate knowledge of "British Isles" issues, exact same disruptive behaviour and commentary. WP:DUCK applies. --HighKing (talk) 12:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well a self-confessed sock from the discussion page, but it may be User:Irvine22 rather than one of the above. Irvine at one point managed to create IDs whose IPs did not match up on a check user --Snowded TALK 19:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely an MBM sock, just look at the contribs. Although I'm not 100% sure about LB, there's no doubt about this. --Footyfanatic3000 (talk  · contribs) 20:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence submitted by N419BH

See User talk:Snowded. N419BH 01:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Oh go on then. I'm a sock, so what. Getting rid of British Isles is all about socks on both sides, big deal.

Stop reverting my edits. Yes a sock, but I'm admitting it and this is my first offence so I expect they'll let me off. SpongerJack (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

In the words of Peter Parker, "...my spider senses are tingling". The new account seems a tad too knowledgable. GoodDay (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The time is approaching for a range-block. GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
 Confirmed User:SpongerJack = User:MidnightBlueMan
 Confirmed User:SpongerJack = User:CarbonNumbers = User:FootballPhil — Rlevse • Talk • 00:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked findings. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Marking as closed per the results of several CheckUsers. I doubt anything else will come up here. –MuZemike 19:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

18 August 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]



Evidence submitted by HighKing
[edit]

There's a host of sock accounts on this issue and it's difficult to uncover most of them as they appear to be very expert at covering their tracks. LemonMonday has been dormant for months, but in the last week has become active once again, with the same POV and editing styles as the other editors. If it had stayed dormant, I wouldn't have filed this, but note that it also appears to fit with the modus operandi of whoever the sock master is. It may even be that there are more than one Sock Master. All the accounts are basically SPA's editing on "British Isles" related topics, all sharing the exact same POV. I've focused a lot on the timelines of creation and first editing as they strongly show an undeniable relationship as follows:

  • 25th July 2008 at 11:28 - MF account created. Edits on 25th and 26th.
  • 25th July 2008 at 11:08 - User:Blue Bugle created. This account was reported as a sock of LemonMonday by me at the time but the evidence was inconclusive. (shows a link to BB and MF)
  • 29th July 2008 at 11:38 - LM account created. Edits on 29th.
  • No Edits for either in August 2008
  • No Edits for either for nearly all of Sept 2008. Maybe they were away on hols?
  • 30th Sept 2008 8:23 to 8:33, 10:02 to 10:08, LM edits British Isles and Talk page.
  • 30th Sept 2008 16:35, Blue Bugle edits for the first time (shows a link to BB and LM) and reverts me on Radio Luxembourg (English), Doyle, Rainforest, and Alexander Thom.
  • 30th Sept 2008 17:55, 19:58, 20:00 to 20:09, 21:05 to 21:56 - IP address 86.0.92.239 edits on British Isles, as well as reverts me on Tide, Gildas, Glowworm, Alexander Thom, and Carleton S. Coon.
  • 30th Sept 2008 22:56, MBM account created (Possibly acknowledged as IP address 86.0.92.239). Edits same British Isles Talk page. (shows link to BB MBM LM)

The evidence surrounding the creation dates and initial edits are pretty conclusive in their own right. But there's also additional evidence in their editing. If anybody believe the above isn't enough and wants to see more, I'm happy to provide it in detail. For example, same behaviour of "serial editing" in that at no time, among all these editors, were they ever editing at the same time. They never have intermingled edits where one is replying to another, etc. For example:

  • 7th October 2008 - LM edit at 08:09, 12:29, 13:52, 15:07. MBM edits 17:09, 18:49, 19:02
  • 10th October 2008 - LM edits from 13:52 to 14:20. MBM edits 16:36, 16:47, 18:10 and 22:02

The most recent occasion where they edited on the same day was

Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]

Talk about a witch hunt. Time would be better spent debating the inclusion or exclusion of British Isles at WT:BISE instead of making SOCK allegations against editors. It is also ashame as the editor in question has been more constructive over the past 24-48 hours, following the rules there and even changing his signature so its easier for us all to read.  :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 11:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence at LemonMonday's Talk page puts a completely different perspective on what you'd call "constructive". It's always hard to lose a buddy, but don't think of it as just LemonMonday, think of it as the 5 or 6 socks already uncovered and all the disruption caused. --HighKing (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just think the above is rather obsessive, you clearly spent some time on your report. This whole situation with midnightblue is sadly just a direct result of the crusades and we all know how that started. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Always best to check on this subject BW on either side , especially with a disruptive editor. We saw the same pattern with the Midnight Blue socks - disruption, warning followed by better behaviour for a bit then the whole pattern started again. Also after a year of "crusades" to remove BI we are now dealing with a crusade to insert it so I suppose its balanced. And no behaviour justifies or explains sock puppets--Snowded TALK 11:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would not even be debating this matter right now if it was not for the crusades that started long before i arrived in this dispute. It was the systemic removal of British Isles from articles across wikipedia that created a need for a taskforce to be set up to try and resolve it. I do not consider what is taking place on BISE to be a crusade right now, we are attempting to clean up some of the mess from the crusades which has led to core geographical articles missing important information simply because people do not like the term British Isles. The crusades are why we are all here now, and its why someone like midnightblue breaks the rules. Of course it does not justify rule breaking, but we should accept and acknowledge what came first. Now that we have a formal process in place to prevent the unjustified removal of BI, it might be worth considering trying to bring this SOCK issue to a conclusion. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And part of that process is clearing out socks and punishing personal attacks and soap boxing. I'd also suggest you stop using the word crusade, Those who have proposed removal of BI in general do so because they think there has been casual use of inappropriate terms. Those of you attempting to insert it think you do so for similar high motives. Those of us who wait for the proposals and then respond case by case would just like the name calling and accusations to stop and all sock puppets cleared out from either side. There is no valid reason that explains or justifies sock puppetry. --Snowded TALK 11:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have agreed not to use the word crusade on the WT:BISE to avoid bringing up the past but i see no problem with the term, the crusades seem a reasonable way to describe what happened over many years, long before i arrived on wikipedia. It is clear sometimes British Isles is used incorrectly, such cases should rightly be changed. But it is not an "inappropriate term". So removals of it with edit summaries like "removing political pov" and other such things are totally unacceptable, but it happened during the crusades. I agree and i said in my previous post, nothing justifies rule breaking although there is that WP:IGNORE. All i am saying is the crusades created something like Midnightblue. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BW let them take responsibility for their own actions and not allow them to blame others for them breaking the rules. Bjmullan (talk) 12:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone must take responsibility for their own actions yes, but i can not just ignore the cause. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Tis best to clear up any doubts. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Whatever the result, the Irish accuser has little credibility. Has he not done the same himself in the past?
It is all just more political gaming in his campaign to remove the words "British Isles" from the Wikipedia
which is creating an unhealthily oppressive atmosphere where snooping, snitching and insinuation rules.
--Triton Rocker (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TR, I realise that it's quite a challenge for you to string more than a couple of sentences together in a civil fashion, but for the record, I used an alternate account for 4 or 5 edits. None of which on articles I had edited on previously, none of the edits were deemed disruptive, and were used for a very specific purpose. The investigating admins fully cleared me. If you bring this up again, or attempt to slur my name again, I will report you. --HighKing (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anything happening about this? Seems like the suspect has gone to ground. Bjmullan (talk) 09:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you need to understand is that at the time HighKing was embarking on his campaign to remove British Isles from Wikipedia a host of new editors came in to try and do something about it. HighKing has now got to the point where he claims just about any editor who goes against his POV and edits in the British Isles area is a sock of just one master editor; quite ridiculous. LevenBoy (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or just one editor with a host of sock accounts. Take your pick. --HighKing (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But apparently not in this case.BritishWatcher (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, WP:DUCK doesn't require CU evidence. Given the strong circumstantial evidence, I'd say it's pretty likely. I'd also add that I didn't post any evidence involving the actual editing patterns. These days, technically knowledgeable editors have little trouble hiding their technical tracks and avoiding a CU hit, but behavioral evidence is much stronger and can't be masked or hidden for very long. --HighKing (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So a person should be punished because they have been involved in the same dispute with yourself. That hardly seems like solid evidence to justify labelling someone a sock and indef banning them. 19:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)BritishWatcher (talk)
LoL. No, unlike your attempts to topic ban anyone who disagrees with you based on non-existent and imagined slights to the now-dead great British empire, this evidence is based on creation dates and timings. --HighKing (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have supported you being topic banned and indeed the community over on WP:ANI voted to apply sanctions to you to stop you from adding or removing British Isles again, although for some reason those sanctions were not applied. And then straight after you got off that time, you went and removed British Isles from another article. I do not know what the British Empire has to do with this, the British Isles was around long before the British Empire. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Indeed, the crusades certainly dragged many editors into this dispute. Most would rather be getting on with other things, but when facing something thats a bit like 1930s book burnings, its understandable why some may make most of their contributions in this area and need to take breaks. We all get a little tired of this at times. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The pro-BI crusade has always been the disruptive and abusive problem. --HighKing (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was the endless crusade to remove British Isles from articles all over wikipedia, including attempts to even move British Isles itself that has led to this dispute. I would not be here talking about this matter right now if it was not for the crusade to remove British Isles from articles. I have better things to do than go around inserting British Isles on different articles, but sadly i can not ignore removals of British isles which is censorship, simply because some editors do not like the term. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LoL - right. And you can't be having that! That must be why there's a need to ignore policies and sock till you drop. --HighKing (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you accusing me of something too? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Phew, glad that's cleared up (see clerk findings). GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious. One clerk states Behavioural evidence does indeed look very convincing. The other states I was also surprised by the strength of the behavioral evidence. But the CU is marked as "Technically Unlikely". I'm assuming that's based on the normal criteria used, where the ISP IP address is a strong indicator and given most weight. But with the widespread prevalence of VPN's, and the ease at which one can set up VPN's or use freely available VPN networks, it'll be very interesting to see how much weight behavioral evidence is given in cases like this. I spent a long time on a previous SPI case compiling very compelling evidence which I sent to the closing clerk but I didn't hear anything back - oddly enough it is also relevant to this SPI case. If this case is closed based solely on the CU evidence, I wonder how much more behavioural evidence would it take before a WP:DUCK is acknowledged, because it really is very strong. It's notable how the last couple of SPI cases have also gone quiet when the case is open - there are reasons for that also.... --HighKing (talk) 10:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Someone should not be indef blocked just because the two editors have been mostly involved in the same dispute as you. The crusade to remove British Isles from wikipedia has dragged many editors into this dispute. Clearly you want to take out as many editors as possible that have opposed you, you mention yourself this is not the first time you have started an SPI case. If there is no technical evidence, the editor should be given the benefit of the doubt and not hanged simply for having the same interest in combating the crusade against British Isles use on wikipedia. There is nothing against the rules about having long periods of inactivity whilst people get on with other things in their lives. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At a recent ANI, and at the WT:BISE page, editors have been warned for disrupting a topic by bringing up inappropriate points, not assuming AGF, and accusing editors of have a "campaign to remove British Isles from all of Wikipedia", and you've accused me of having a "crusade". You constantly disrupt administrative threats by attempting to justify the actions of other editors on the basis that they are battling evil-doers, and that core policies should be put aside for those editors. You accuse me and others of motives which are untrue, and despite being asked numerous times to stop, you continue to make these accusations. Stop now. --HighKing (talk) 12:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think i have anything i need to stop. The problem on the ANI was it was specifically about Tritons actions and i got told not to discuss other matters, which i did stop although i do not accept my actions were disruptive there and it is the first time ive been involed in a debate on that page where such restrictions have been demanded. In the BISE page, there was an open atmosphere there where people use to speak their mind, the rules there have since changed. Since being told not to mention other editors motives or use the word crusade, or mention book burnings there, i have complied with that rule, ive also had to ask others there on several occasions to do the same.
In this case it is important to point out that many editors have been involved in this dispute so people have the facts and background, not just see two editors with similar involvement in one dispute in a list of edits which can easily be taken out of context. There has absolutely been a campaign to remove British Isles from wikipedia, this is clear from the history and the whole reason why we are all here today. You accuse me of being disruptive, i do not consider my actions here or anywhere else to be disruptive unless we are talking about disrupting a certain outcome that some may wish to see. I do not think an editor should be given an indef block simply on the grounds of being involved in the same dispute as yourself and having long periods of inactivity. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree and I and others are getting tired of you accusing any editor that disagrees with you as being on a crusade or engaging in a campaign. It's disruptive, untrue, and a breach of AGF to make accusations, and it's grossly insulting to state that my reasons for highlighting a SOCK is simply because the editor was involved in the same dispute. It's equally tiresome and disruptive to make these accusations in matters dealing with 3RR, ANI, or SPI, as a way of justifying the behaviour being examined. You may believe, in your opinion, that there is a campaign. But that doesn't mean that you can and should accuse others, in public, of engaging in this behaviour, and continuing to do so is disruptive, and off the point. You've been asked in two placed now to stop because it is off-topic and disruptive. Continuing to drag your accusations across Wikipedia to different places has to stop. --HighKing (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but there is clear evidence there has been a crusade to remove British Isles from wikipedia. I am not going to hide that fact, when asked not to mention it on the BISE page i have complied, but that request was specifically for that talk page. I believe crusade is an accurate description of what has taken place and this whole situation is because of it backed up by a huge amount of evidence. When i get told to stop doing something i do stop. I was asked not to mention Crusades or book burnings on BISE, i accepted that and have not mentioned it since. I got asked not to mention other incidents in the dispute on the specific ANI debate about Triton, i accepted that and have not done so since. I am sorry if you are getting tired of my actions, some of us are tired of other editors actions as well. Its the price we all pay for being involved in this silly dispute, which was caused by the removal of British Isles from articles across wikipedia. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have any indication on which way this is likely to close? --HighKing (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that both the accused and the decision on this have gone to ground..... Bjmullan (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious isn't it? Behind the scenes stuff is going on here. CUs, clerks and "interested parties" are waiting for LemonMonday to break cover and then they can carry out another CU on him. That's what you get when prcoesses such as this one are totally opaque. LevenBoy (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but like a fugitive that runs when "innocent", the behaviour points to guilt and not innocence. Why not simply block the account based on behaviour, and wait for a request for the block to be lifted. This particular sock-meister shows in-depth technical abilities, a knowledge of the CU processes (hence not editing in a month), and looking at where this account links, it shows a veritable "farm" of pre-registered accounts to pop into existence at various discussions. Based on that, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to learn of new accounts that exhibit the same characteristics, and are run by the same sock-meister. Wouldn't you agree? --HighKing (talk) 10:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I wouldn't agree. Answered at my Talk page. LevenBoy (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Someone should not be blocked simply because they are involved in a dispute with you like Midnightblue has been. The edit history of Lemon shows he goes offline for long periods of time (last time i checked that was not a crime), so i fail to see why him not being online a couple of weeks now suggests guilt. If there is no technical evidence, he should be given the benefit of the doubt, atleast until he breaks the rules again or is causing disruption. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One can't blame HK for being suspicious, though. It would help matters some, if LM would come on-line again. Rightly or wrongly, it does create the impression that LM has gone into hiding. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hes been suspicious, hes made his report, there is no technical evidence. The accused should there for be cleared. Not get this indef block imposed on him for just being a fairly inactive editor that takes an interest in British Isles related matters. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I reckon, LM's inactivity (a whole month) sorta makes this SPI moot (for now). GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its also worth noting that we have had sockmasters (Irvine22 for example) who were adept at creating socks which avoided technical checks. In those circumstances behavioral evidence has to be used. I find the period of silence further evidence that this is a sock especially as it is a disruptive SPA --Snowded TALK 06:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How so? If they've avoided technical checks how do you know about them? Regarding this user, he's just an occasional editor. His whole edit history, such as it is, demonstrates that. I understand that some editors would like to silence all opposition to their cause, but really! If we're not careful we'll be getting to the point where editors are blocked just becuase HighKing thinks they are a sock. This SPI is long past its sell-by date. As some might say, let's move on. LevenBoy (talk) 13:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
  • There might be some data available for MidnightBlueMan (last edit was early June). Behavioural evidence does indeed look very convincing, but considering the two previous blocks and unblocks, I'd prefer a checkuser take a look before I make a judgement on this. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically  Unlikely, though I admit I was also surprised by the strength of the behavioral evidence. — Coren (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm marking this for close. LemonMonday's disappearance and the technical evidence provided by Coren would seem to advise against any action for now. TNXMan 14:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
03 October 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]



Evidence submitted by HighKing
[edit]

Same modus operandi as before. A "sleeper" account, initially created 25th April 2010 but not used. First edits are 27th July 2010 to insert "British Isles" into two articles - A16 and Big Dipper. And to cap it off, this editor just now reverts my edit where I removed two tags placed originally by MidnightBlueMan on British Isles naming dispute. WP:DUCK methinks. User avoiding block. --HighKing (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]

Well who ever he is he was certainly right to revert you removal of those tags. If this guy appeals and turns out not to be a SOCK of midnight blue, i hope this is the last time the WP:DUCK argument will be employed. A couple of the recent SOCK investigations have turned up no technical evidence. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BW - have you not already been warned in the past, and several times at that, to cluttering up ANI and SPI reports with off-topic rants such as this one? If you've something pertinent to say, fair enough, but you never do. Perhaps a wandering admin could make this point again, I doubt you'll listen to me. --HighKing (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MY above comment was in no way cluttering up and an off topic rant. I simply said as he had been blocked with no technical evidence, if it proved to be wrong, its the last time DUCK should be used in this area because weve had several sock investigations which have been incorrect. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Run the CU, get it cleared up. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Your comment is not relevant to this case, and is the beginning of you cluttering up this topic. It's a tactic that you have been using for some time now, to detract attention and even to try to refocus attention onto another editor. It's a transparent tactic, and most people have cottoned onto it now. Might be best if you find something else to amuse yourself with. --HighKing (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well i disagree with you. My comment was completely relevant to this investigation, your response attacking me is what is cluttering up this page now. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly was your comment, trying to justify his reversion of my edits, in any way relevant to this SPI report? How exactly is your call to stop using WP:DUCK, which is the *primary* mechanism to detect socking, relevant to *this* SPI report? Neither comments are relevant, and I (and many others) can only conclude, based on your previous commentary and interference at other SPI and ANI reports, that your knee-jerk reaction to any report involving a pro-BI editor, is to attempt to clutter the report with off topic ranting. Should I produce a list of diffs and perhaps we can get an uninvolved admin to decide if I was "attacking" you, or simply commenting on an old, tired, and transparent tactic which you have been repeatedly asked to stop on other reports? --HighKing (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To highlight that not only Midnightblue who may have added the tags would have restored them following your removal. I certainly would have if id seen that happen. As for DUCK of course its relevant, the editor has been blocked because of DUCK, and not technical evidence. I simply pointed out that we have had a couple of recent SOCK investigations where DUCK could have been applied or in one case has been requested for a block anyway, which turned out not to have any technical evidence to back up the block. As for the attack, i considered "If you've something pertinent to say, fair enough, but you never do." an attack on me. It may not violate WP:NPA, but i took it as an attack against me. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that both of you would be better off having this discussion on one or other of your own talk pages. TFOWR 22:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. It's worthwhile to highlight this tactic used by BritishWatcher (and friends) to clutter up reports made against any editor exhibiting proBI leanings. He was warned before by Cailil to stop. Perhaps another warning is in order?? --HighKing (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
my previous warning was about discussing the history of this conflict over at ANI. I have not done that here. My comments were all relevant to this SPI. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) OK. BW, I fail to see how questioning HK's reverts has any relevance here. Don't do it again. And HK does have a point about the frequency with which you pop up at SPI to comment on reports like this.
HK, arguing the toss here makes it look as if you're not serious about wanting to cut down the off-topic commentary and just want to score political points.
Both of you: take it to your damn talk pages. Here's a tip: when filing an SPI report, an ANI report, making a case at WT:BISE, or doing anything similar - make you case coherently, once. Then walk away. People do not read hugely indented discussions, and it reflects very poorly on both/all participants. Right now that includes me, so consider me to be officially irked. That is all. TFOWR 22:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see hes appealing the block. A speedy CU so it can be determined if he should be unblocked or not would be good. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He's canceled his unblock request & has just announced he has created another account (thus evading his block). If not before, now he is a sock. GoodDay (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Unblock request here (subsequently withdrawn). Mentions little ol' me. As far as I'm aware the only thing I've had to say in respect of our friend is this, so I'm a little surprised they've had time to form such a strident view of me (unless - gasp! - they've edited before). Never mind. Anyway, given this I'd suggest a check user would be very useful. TFOWR 21:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

information Administrator note I'm unfamiliar with the case, but a brief comparison of the edits from both accounts was enough to convince me they're almost certainly the same person. As such, I've blocked and tagged the sock. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MidnightBlueMan/Archive&oldid=1136068164"