Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidYork71/Archive

Add links
Page semi-protected
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

User:DavidYork71

DavidYork71 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

DavidYork71

DavidYork71 (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:

Report date April 5 2009, 04:08 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by — Dædαlus Contribs


The account's first contribution is to request unprotection of an article which a previous DY71 sock frequented. As far as the abuse report goes for DY71, he has been known to be a POV warrior, pushing with as many socks as he has to to insert his POV into articles. Look at the user name of this brand new user, Righteous Plague. That doesn't scream a constructive contributor, especially in regards to DY71's MO. Besides that, his second and third contributions are to the talk page one of the last socks frequented, where he can be seen using a {{cite}} template]. This isn't something a new user would use or even know about.— Dædαlus Contribs 04:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request –
code letter
: E  + B (Community ban/sanction evasion and ongoing serious pattern vandalism)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below. Xclamation point 05:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)    Requested by — Dædαlus Contribs 04:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]


Checkuser is required to make sure that this is indeed a sockpuppet of the massively abusive POV warrior, DY71, and to see if a new range block can be applied to prevent further abuse, at least for a period of time(he does keep coming back, after all).— Dædαlus Contribs 04:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk note: Tagged, and archiving. Synergy 20:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
  •  Confirmed the following as DavidYork71:
  1. Theveet (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  2. RighteousPlague (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  3. GrosFalse (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  4. PoweredByApathy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

IP hardblocked. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date April 13 2009, 04:31 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Jayron32.talk.contribs


  • He's baaaaack... You know the drill by now. He's like Lay's Potato Chips. No one can eat just one. In this case, one can fully expect a well developed sockfarm lurking here somewhere. Standard request for a CheckUser to root this out, block the underlying IP, yada yada yada.
Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request –
code letter
: B  + E (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions
  •  Confirmed the following:
  1. Parfwa (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  2. Crinsz (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  3. Zdsok (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  4. Skavb (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  5. Intris (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  6. Dozergrad (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  7. Geostet (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Open proxy (also being used simultaneously by Grawp) blocked. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Synergy 22:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date May 13 2009, 01:45 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Daedalus969

User has already been blocked as a possible sock of DY71, due to a similar MO concerning the master account and previously confirmed socks.— Dædαlus Contribs 01:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request –
code letter
: E  + B (Community ban/sanction evasion and ongoing serious pattern vandalism)
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by — Dædαlus Contribs 01:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]


CU is required to make sure that this new user is just that, and not another of DY71's socks. The user is claiming to not be a sock of him, despite the MO similarities, and, as such, the unblock of this user hinges upon whether they are a confirmed sock or not. Please review DY71's abuse report before looking into this further, for the low-down on this socking problem.— Dædαlus Contribs 01:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Talk 02:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date March 18 2009, 13:52 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by —Snigbrook

Two accounts,

Strip search prank call scam and Project Chanology before being blocked, but is tagged as a suspected sockpuppet of DavidYork71 (talk · contribs) not YesOn8 (talk · contribs) so YesOn8 may be a sockpuppet of DavidYork71. —Snigbrook 13:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

There are several already confirmed socks of YesOn8 (see
Troy Davis case. An IP presumably used by YesOn8 had previously requested unprotection of the article, which had been protected after being edited by sockpuppets of DavidYork71; this makes the connection to both sockpuppeteers more likely (although the IP is in a range now blocked as a suspected open proxy). —Snigbrook 14:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
77.35.3.164 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) also reverted to the same version of Violence against women, so may be another sock. —Snigbrook 14:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request –
code letter
: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by —Snigbrook 13:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk note: RFCU endorsed by Mayalld. Synergy 20:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
  • The editing pattern, UA and open proxies reminds me of banned user DavidYork71 (talk · contribs). Anyway, the following are  Confirmed:
  1. Comparable2Allah (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  2. SirCliffReal68EurovisionChamp (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  3. 1race2rule (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  4. Truncatr (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  5. Blagojevich (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  6. MethaneSymphony (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  7. YesOn8 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  8. SoothingDharma (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  9. AffableRinpoche (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  10. AlwaysVictorious (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  11. Siforr (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  12. Stamti (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  13. Rorschachh (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  14. Veniz (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Open proxies blocked. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: All socks blocked. Done here. MBisanz talk 06:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date June 25 2009, 13:36 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Peripitus

All of the above are, by evidence of identical edits to

Muhammad and slavery, DavidYork71 socks that I've indefinitely blocked. As he's been creating semi-sleeper accounts and working to create autoconfirmed ones I'm concerned about sleepers in the drawer, or other accounts of his squirreling away to become autoconfirmed - Peripitus (Talk) 13:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request –
code letter
: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Peripitus (Talk) 13:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions


Report date July 28 2009, 03:56 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by DoctorW

I haven't dealt with this topic before, so am not clear on procedure. I reverted an addition of "Scientology" to a number of psychology-related pages, went to the new user (User:Mike Rinder's) contributions to see what other pages he'd inappropriately edited (every single edit seemed inappropriate to me, though I didn't revert all of them), and noticed that his very first edit ever was to add a "wikiquote" template, a highly unlikely first-ever edit for a new user. -DoctorW 03:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Per above. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


DavidYork71

DavidYork71 (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:

Report date August 1 2009, 17:50 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by
96

Both users tried to add fluff to

96 17:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request –
code letter
: F (Other reason )
Current status –
96 17:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk endorsed. Obviously not a new user, as per the evidence above. Likely some old troll, but a CU would have to look further here. --Kanonkas :  Talk  23:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed, also JustifiedEnduringly (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). – Luna Santin (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, when I saw Mumia Abu-Jamal in the contrib history, I knew it had to be DavidYork71 (talk · contribs).  Confirmed. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 13:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
  •  Clerk note: - All blocked and tagged
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date October 27 2009, 01:06 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by The WordsmithCommunicate

Is a

WP:DUCK, first edit is nearly identical to DY71's socking on the page. The edit summary is nearly identical as well. Pattern of abuse on that article, with socks making the same edit over and over. The WordsmithCommunicate 01:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date November 1 2009, 01:46 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by
96

First edit by this user was to remove a tag on an article--not something you'd expect from a new user. Contribution history suggests a very unusual familarity with our policies, and the anti-Semitic tenor of his edits is very similar to that of DavidYork71.

96 01:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request –
code letter
: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status –
96 01:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions

 Clerk note: Marking as closed as moot. Both accounts already indefinitely blocked. MuZemike 18:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed "concern that he may be a sockpuppet" template to indefblocked.
i'm groovy. 02:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date January 21 2010, 08:16 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by
DrKiernan

Similar editing pattern: focusing on

talk) 08:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request –
code letter
: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status –
talk) 08:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC) [reply
]

 Confirmed, also SoloAuditor (talk · contribs). I have  IP blocked a small range that was used by him only in the last months. -- Luk talk 16:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date February 5 2010, 16:40 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Cirt
  1. Australia-related BLP disruption [3]
  2. Scientology-related disruption [4]
  3. Changes
    WP:GA-rated article Project Chanology to past-tense [5]
Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request –
code letter
: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Cirt (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 28 2010, 20:36 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Cirt
  1. Lieswell (talk · contribs), an already blocked suspected sock of banned User:DavidYork71, made these edits to article page Rehabilitation Project Force: [6] and [7]
  2. Scientology SPA account, made a very similar pattern of edits to the exact same article, in the same attempts to remove the word "controversial" from the article, [8], [9], [10], [11]
    .
  3. WP:ARBSCI, similar username to "Lieswell", [12]

-- Cirt (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request –
code letter
: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by -- Cirt (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

talk) 21:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

The only non-blocked sock is stale. I'm not sure what you want from me. --Deskana (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 00:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date May 9 2010, 17:41 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Cirt
  1. Ulmgambolputty (talk · contribs) -- An already blocked sock of User:DavidYork71, changing header on article related to Scientology, Rehabilitation Project Force, to remove "controversy" and instead paint a whitewashing portrayal = 09:03, 27 April 2010
  2. Scientology controversy, removing subsection header "Attack the Attacker" policy, and replacing it with, Not turning the other cheek = 23:25, 8 May 2010
Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request –
code letter
: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by -- Cirt (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

WP:DUCK, but we haven't had an underlying IP check in a while, and we could use one to see if he's changed his range or not. –MuZemike 20:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

 Confirmed. He's on a rather large range. --Deskana (talk) 00:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
29 May 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
Addendum after CU check, additional suspected socks


Evidence submitted by Cirt
  1. Noconcept (talk · contribs), at Scientology-topic article, Volunteer Ministers, changes subsection header from "Controversy" to "Appraisals". [13]
  2. Note exact same behavior pattern by  Confirmed and blocked socks of User:DavidYork71, on related articles within the same topic. (please see archived history on case page.)

-- Cirt (talk) 05:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Addendum: In response to
    WP:DUCK
    , compare:
  1. Noconcept (talk · contribs) -- changing subsection header "Controversy" to "Appraisals", with
  2. User:Ulmgambolputty -- changing subsection header "Controversy" to "Cost recovery"
    , and
  3. User:Superfalse -- changing subsection header "'Attack the Attacker' policy" to "Not turning the other cheek".
Addition of IPs, additional info connected to User:Noconcept

Both IPs showed up, at the same article,

WP:DUCK analysis on likelihood that User:Noconcept = User:DavidYork71. -- Cirt (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request –
code letter
: E  + A (Community ban/sanction evasion and arbcom ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by -- Cirt (talk) 05:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]
WP:DUCK. I doubt this can be turned into a hard block; the collateral damage on even IP editing is a little high itself. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:DUCK of User:Drugring which may be related all the way back here, but no reason to investigate that anymore. (It may come up in a CU check anyway when checking the others, but no need to go out of the way to check it.) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:DUCK. Requesting a CU for confirmation. No comment expected regarding the IPs blocked earlier (a hardblock appears even to me to be out of the question; I almost couldn't do a softblock). --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:DUCK. The last additional diff is something I was looking for, but missed. I'm placing the CU request on hold while I get some additional information but at this stage it is likely to be cancelled. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
duck case but looking again at the CU queue, and at the IPs I blocked, I guess it can't hurt to make another check to see if a smaller rangeblock can't be placed. The worst we're going to get is a "nope, still the same". --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Varigate and Noconcept  Confirmed. Actually, while it is certainly a somewhat high-traffic range, if you wanted to block the entire ranges these two sockpuppets have used, you would have to at least expand the block to 110.20.0.0/18 and add 114.72.192.0/18, which was also used. Dominic·t 09:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the CU check and the  Confirmed result is indeed helpful. I have added three more suspected sock accounts of User:DavidYork71, above, under "Addendum after CU check, additional suspected socks ". Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 11:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed Voldair, which also turned up Lets breed. Asdrubal1 is Red X Unrelated. Dominic·t 07:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
07 June 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Cirt
  1. Same location as previous, Australia.
  2. Same exact pattern of behavior, see contribs of both the account and the IP.
  3. Focus on vandalism in topic, Scientology.
  4. Compare with most recent prior archived case investigation.

-- Cirt (talk) 04:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request –
code letter
: B + E (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by -- Cirt (talk) 04:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]


 Confirmed

as the same user as Varigate, Noconcept, et.al..

It's very  Likely that

is also part of that group.

FWIW, I'm not 100% that Lets breed (talk · contribs) was necessarily a sock. Possibly, but not necessarily.

Amalthea 15:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. TNXMan 16:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
07 June 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Cirt
  1. Identical editing behavior to most recent  Confirmed cases.
  2. Edits to same topic of pages, Scientology area.
  3. Edits to same exact article pages, immediately after prior accounts and IPs were blocked as confirmed socks.
  • Requesting checkuser investigation to examine underlying IP edits.
  • This is becoming a frequent problem on similar articles, might need to think about:
    • Semi-protection, and
    • Rangeblocks.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request –
code letter
: E  + B (Community ban/sanction evasion and ongoing serious pattern vandalism)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by -- Cirt (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Confirmed, of course. Covering all ranges typically used would be rather brutal, I'm afraid. Some of them can be done, but semi-protecting his two current favorite articles would cause decidedly less collateral damage. HTH, Amalthea 21:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note User already blocked and rangeblocks appear to be out. Marking as closed. TNXMan 22:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
29 June 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Cirt
  • At article, Scientology controversies, exact same pattern of behavior as  Confirmed and blocked socks (in SPI archives), namely, POV-pushing by modifying subsection headers [14].
  • Note: This above diff uses the exact same subsection header titles as have been used in the past by  Confirmed socks of User:DavidYork71, modifying subsection headers to "Asset Management", etc.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request –
code letter
: A  + E (Arbcom ban/sanction evasion and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by -- Cirt (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Technical data matches. Not by itself conclusive, taken together with the mentioned revert to a May version by Drugring (talk · contribs) I guess it is. Amalthea 23:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. TNXMan 01:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
06 October 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Jayron32

Well, it's been a few months, but you knew he couldn't stay away THAT long, now did you all? User:Ganec displayed the following hallmark DavidYork71 activities: Edits scientology articles: [15], focus on Project Chanology: [16], locates to Australia (check article interest on Ganec's contribs list), edits articles related to violence against women in a way in a peculiar way (compare Ganec's edit here: [17] and here: [18] with those of a confirmed DavidYork71 sock, Comparable2Allah: [19]. This one has set my Spidey Sense a tinglin. As usual, he's a prolific sockmaster, so checkuser will be needed to confirm this one (Ganec is currently unblocked, but this evidence is kinda

ducky) and to root out the likely thousands of socks which have been created since his last report here. --Jayron32 01:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Jayron32 01:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
07 October 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Bilby

User:Ganec was blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of DavidYork71 by NativeForeigner on the 6th. Subsequently, User:Trizbee appeared, inserting the same content into Violence against Indians in Australia controversy (eg Ganec; Trizbee).

Trizbee went on to edit at Talk:Michael Jackson and The Culture of Critique series, amongst other articles. Later, Trizbee created a pro-facist userbox (since deleted).

A few hours later, User:NordicPowerFascist appeared and edited the same articles to insert some of the same content (eg Violence against Indians in Australia controversy, The Culture of Critique series and Michael Jackson).

I don't know DavidYork71's editing style enough to make a judgement, but it seems strong that NordicPowerFascist = Trizbee, Trizbee = Ganec, and it is believed that Ganec = DavidYork71. - Bilby (talk) 11:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Bilby (talk) 11:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have known DavidYork71's editing style since 2007 and I can say that Bilby's description is spot on. Endorsed. --Merbabu (talk) 11:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

I stumbled on this discussion after reviewing a report at

WP:UAA
. Anyway, it's  Confirmed that:

Spuum (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), who was previously blocked as a sock of DavidYork71. It's  Likely that Trizbee (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is related. TNXMan 11:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

17 October 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
Comments
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Confirmed that

are all the same, and very likely the same as Trizbee (talk · contribs), an account previously blocked as a sock of DavidYork71. Amalthea 18:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DavidYork71 is banned, the edits from the above accounts may need reverting per
WP:BAN. Amalthea 18:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Socks blocked. Edits reverted. -- Cirt (talk) 18:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
03 November 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Cirt
  1. Starts with edits to topic of Australia.
  2. Interest in politics.
  3. After about ten total edits, arrives at page, Project Chanology.
  4. Posts to talk page of Talk:Project Chanology, requesting article be written in past tense, or article be unprotected.
  5. Compare with prior sock activity of banned User:DavidYork71, see but one example, [20].
  6. Compare with socks from this SPI case page's archives, at same article, Project Chanology.

Thank you for your time. -- Cirt (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
07 November 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Cirt
  1. WP:SPA account, other than one edit to Dick Cheney, all edits to topic of Scientology
    .
  2. Early edits focus on Australia area within Scientology, specifically, Aaron Saxton.
  3. Username amount of syllables and phrasing is quite similar to others  Confirmed as banned User:DavidYork71, see SPI case page archives.
  4. Account created shortly after prior account was  Confirmed here at SPI, and indef blocked, see SPI case page archives.

-- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Auto-generated every six hours.

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Likely based on editing patterns, matching ISPs, and matching user agents with previous socks. –MuZemike 01:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

08 November 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
  1. Rizwanharman (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  2. Slungload (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)


Evidence submitted by Cirt
Rizwanharman, sock of DavidYork71, same behavior as blocked sock Audit2clear
  1. Please see most recently blocked sock, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DavidYork71/Archive#07_November_2010.
  2. Same exact behavior as most recently blocked sock, compare Special:Contributions/Rizwanharman with contribs for Audit2clear (talk · contribs).
  3. Compare [21] at article Mark Bunker, to [22] at same article.
  4. The sock re-created the previously deleted category, of Category:Reform in Scientology.
  5. Please Checkuser to block underlying IP, and any other associated sleeper sock accounts. -- Cirt (talk) 11:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Slungload, sock of DavidYork71, same behavior as blocked sock Audit2clear
  1. [23] = same behavior as blocked sock Audit2clear (talk · contribs), changes a category that was "critical of ..." Scientology, to be more mild, changing to "about...".
  2. No userpage. [24]
  3. Account created recently, after sock Audit2clear (talk · contribs) was blocked, [25]

Auto-generated every six hours.

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

The two are  Confirmed as being the same as each other and the same as Creatiff (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), who was previously blocked as a sock. TNXMan 12:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 12:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
21 December 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


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

New editors at

Australia – New Zealand relations (a known target for DavidYork71) with an understanding of piping links etc. Mattinbgn (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by other users

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

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Bush_tax_cuts
Suro 01:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Confirmed the following are the same:

21 December 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Unexplained revert at

Australia – New Zealand relations, per other recent sock edits. Already blocked and tagged. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Confirmed, no sleepers. TNXMan 17:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

23 December 2010
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~" Important exercise to flush out any others - the Australia- New Zealand Good Article status obviously bothers the editor - to be a banned editor and attain a Good Article badge for an article must be something !

Suro 07:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

NeverKiwi is the same as JavaMonkeys. No comment on the IPs. TNXMan 14:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(t) Merry Chrismasand a Happy New Year! 16:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
1 January 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

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

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Confirmed - LOL, also;
- Alison ❤ 23:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
09 January 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Per the edit made almost as soon as the user was autoconfirmed at

Australia – New Zealand relations, a known target for this sockpuppet. This edit shows an unusual level of knowledge for a new editor. Mattinbgn (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
04 March 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


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

  1. Same exact edits, at article Project Chanology, changes "is" to "was", etc., same exact pattern as with multiple previous  Confirmed and blocked socks in the investigation case page archives, see diff
  2. First edits ever of the sock account are blatant vandal edits, see diff and diff
  3. Similar pattern to sockmaster DavidYork71 (talk · contribs), interest in Australia, see third ever edit from sock account, diff
  4. Requesting Checkuser technical investigation, in order to block underlying IPs and check for other sleeper accounts and related socks.

Thank you for your time. -- Cirt (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
05 February 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

Sayazakardalamdubursaya (talk · contribs) is already blocked as a sock of Flatulotech. The above editors are making similar changes to the Australia–New Zealand relations as Sayazakardalamdubursaya and began editing straight after he was blocked. The names of the accounts smell ducky too. There is a history of Flatulotech's socks editing this article. AIRcorn (talk) 11:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

These actually appear to trace back to DavidYork71 (talk · contribs):

15 February 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Similar user name and pattern of incendiary or pedantic edits. [26] [27] . Also under review at

WP:UAA. Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
30 March 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


  1. [28] focuses exclusively on Australia, Nazi Party, and Scientology edits, exact behavior of DavidYork71 socks, with only 4 edits outside of David Miscavige leader of Scientology.
  2. [29] [30] first two edits are minor vandalism on Australian politicians page.
  3. [31][32] paints a pro-Nazi whitewashing in next 2 edits (see banned sock [33])
  4. [34] Third edit changes "dictator" to "statesman" in the Lede, similar behavior to changing "controversial" to "rehabilitation" by banned socks (see [35])
  5. [36] After making 4 edits totaling less than 60 characters, which allows them to achieve auto-confirmed status, SternComradeLoyalFascist moves to Scientology related account and makes three edits, whitewashing entire sections of article.
  6. [37] Clearly not a new user, shows knowledge of Wikipedia policy and wiki-markups by referencing and piping both
    WP:NPOV
    "
  7. [38] as soon as they start editing the Scientology page, they mark their edits as "minor" which is similar to other banned socks of DavidYork71, and demonstrates an understanding of what minor edits are by not marking some pages (see [39] [40] [41] [42])
  8. [43] Whitewashes David Miscavige page in multiple edits, which span across the page in a very similar editing pattern to other Scientology related edits by DavidYork71 socks. (See [44] [45])
  9. [46] [47] Edits headings of sections to provide Scientology positive spin similar to other DavidYork71 socks (see [48] [49] [50]
  10. [51] [52] makes argument in edit description that since there is no judicial verdict the statements are false, similar argument of other socks (see [53] [54])

I think this could be closed as per

WP:DUCK. Coffeepusher (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

SternComradeLoyalFascist is a  Confirmed match to DavidYork71 accounts in the archive. TNXMan 18:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

02 April 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


After SternComradeLoyalFascist was banned for [55] [56] disruptive editing and later tagged as a sock of DavidYork71, User:Hubbarddianetik came and [57] repeated the same edit as SternComradeLoyalFascist, as well as posting a conversation from Sterns talk page. User:Hubbarddianetik was banned and now [58] User:DianetixWholetrackLifeMastery is repeating the same disruptive edit. I have already [59] requested semi-protection, and would like Dianetix banned as an obvious sock of User:DavidYork71 and would also request a check-user for any sleepers.Coffeepusher (talk) 11:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Coffeepusher (talk) 11:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Confirmed the following are the same:

05 April 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


David Miscavige has been the target of [60] [61] [62] three different socks of User:DavidYork71 until it was finally semi-protected. Yesterday I manually archived the talk page edits placed there by the socks and now a new sock has since replaced those edits as their first edit. Request checkuser for sleepers. Coffeepusher (talk) 10:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Confirmed, along with Janoskian (talk · contribs). TNXMan 19:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


07 April 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


  1. Confirmed DavidYork71 sock SternComradeLoyalFascist deleted a large chunk from the Marvelous Marvin Hagler page, as well as editing a POV (see archive for david's style) before being blocked.
  2. [63] Since that time each of these seven IP's have come to the page to delete the restore material. IP114.72.201.19 IP 114.72.202.169 IP 42.241.108.73 IP 114.72.242.97 IP 114.72.236.121 IP 42.241.111.61 (with sock edits added in between)
  3. One exception is IP 42.241.32.125 who locates in NSW which is consistent with what we know about David, who didn't restore the edit but expanded David's pov with and edit summary "Marvelous wifebeater", consistent with David's style.
  4. Most of these geolocate to Australia, as with most of DavidYork71's ip accounts
  5. I have already requested semi-protection of the page.

I think this can be closed under

WP:DUCK Coffeepusher (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
07 April 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


David Miscavige has been the target of [64] [65] [66] three different socks of User:DavidYork71 until it was finally semi-protected. I manually archived the talk page edits placed there by the socks and confirmed sock PlanetaryClearingMission replaced those edits as their first edit. I cleaned up the page and now IP 120.151.84.228 has undone that edit as their first edit. IP geolocates to Australia and uses Telstra Internet, behavior that is consistent with DavidYork71 (see: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/DavidYork71). Coffeepusher (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Talk:David Miscavige semi-protected for 1 week. At this point, all we can do is semi-protect articles. I will leave the other ones unprotected for the time being, unless his IPs pop up again. --MuZemike 19:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

12 May 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


I blocked

Timothypgraham (talk · contribs) yesterday as his behaviour on the Australia–Indonesia relations article is very similar to that of DavidYork71's socks (especially in the Australia–New Zealand relations article), and he was using some relatively advanced editing techniques which few new editors employ so quickly. However, Timothypgraham asserts that he is not a David York sock and is requesting unblock. Could another admin please look into this and/or a Checkuser run a check if this is judged appropriate? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 05:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC) Nick-D (talk) 05:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

added another one that is also relatively similar to DY71 on Manila Accord and who's editing time dove tails in with Timothypgraham edits. FTR I reverted Timothypgraham edits to the Australia–Indonesia relations Gnangarra 07:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A close inspection of the edit history at

sats 07:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I have just blocked the Tim-m-m-m-m (talk · contribs) account which posted the message below pending the results of this process. I've also left instructions on how to get messages posted here while blocked at User talk:Tim-m-m-m-m. I have to say that the use of multiple accounts in this context is concerning, though may have been in good faith. Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Hi guys - I thought that it might be helpful if I responded here in person. It seems like there's been a bit of a misunderstanding.

I set up this account (timothypgraham) because I was having trouble signing into my first Wikipedia account, which is this one. A year or two ago, I changed the username of the account and deleted most of the user page content on it because I wasn't really editing many articles, and it was appearing quite prominently in search results (I use a similar email address to that).

Of course, when I actually did want to edit that article on Saturday, it meant that I'd concealed it so well that I couldn't find the older account to sign in. I'm sure we've all been there before -- it was only yesterday that I managed to track it down by going to

User:Timg231
, which redirects to my new account name. With a few guesses on the password, it was possible to sign in.

I'm quite happy to demonstrate for you, one way or another, that I'm also in control of this account (the timothypgraham one). It's a username that I use elsewhere online, including on Facebook and Twitter, so if you'd like to verify that I'm a real person using those, I'm also happy to help out there.

I'd like to apologise for using two different accounts for my edits - I was keen to improve the

Australia-Indonesia relations
article, and I thought that this older account was lost in the ether. If it's possible to merge the two together, I'd really appreciate it if someone could help me out with that. I can imagine this has caused a fair bit of hassle to you guys.

For my part, though, I've been a little frustrated by this process, because the ban that you guys put in place meant that I couldn't respond to what you were discussing here from that account, or from my home IP address. I recognise the need for admins to be able to do their jobs without unnecessary hurdles, but to me, it feels like a rather harsh (and abrupt) response to what I thought were some quite useful contributions to that article. Does Wikipedia have a means to offer feedback on how these processes work?

I'd be really keen to keep working on

Australia-Indonesia relations
, and hopefully restore the changes that I made to it on Saturday, if that's permissible. I can't help but feel that if someone had taken the time to read through the edits in question, they might have acted differently, because I feel they definitely improved on what was there before in terms of completeness, and structure. Was it because you suspected I was this other user, or was it because they were deficient one way or another?

If anyone would like to take this up over email, I'm happy to pass on an address to talk about it further. I hope this gives you the information you need to unblock my account so I can continue contributing to WP.

Thanks. tim (talk) 07:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention. Looks fairly suspect to me, but I'd like to see checkuser confirmation before taking any action. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

05 April 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Courcellez2 edited the talk page of TheReferenceChecker with the edit summaries of "hey cunts" and "cunts". TheReferenceChecker mentioned his original account was "Courcelles". Also, this user appealed the ban on TheReferenceChecker by using this account.

talk) 06:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

logs) 07:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

  •  Confirmed - the following lot;
- Alison ❤ 07:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

28 December 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

A regular attendee at similar attempts to change Australian - New Zealand relations, such as [67] [68] [69] with the same volume of ks in the edits each time. JarrahTree 11:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Blocked and tagged This is obviously DavidYork71, and I've blocked the account. Thanks for reporting this JarrahTree. Nick-D (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DavidYork71/Archive&oldid=1091460822"