Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KirkleyHigh/Archive

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


KirkleyHigh

KirkleyHigh (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date February 20 2010, 18:35 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Europe22

They contributed on the same articles ; for example, 86.162.18.140 and KirkleyHigh contributed on the boys bands related articles, on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wipeout UK, and even on files, such as File:Gave It All Away.jpg. They used the same methods of edition (removal of content on music articles [including certifications, successions boxes and track listings] [1][2][3], references deleted, improper capitalization in subtitles [4] [5], no discussion with other contributors (warnings and messages on their talk page are totally ignored), and they participated at different moments. The user probably tried to circumvent his third blocking[6] with his IP adress[7]. PS: Sorry for my bad English ! -- Europe22 (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request –
code letter
: B  + E (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.   Requested by Europe22 (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk note: moved from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/86.162.18.140 to /KirkleyHigh, SpitfireTally-ho! 18:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 

talk) 04:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

 Clerk declined Tim Song nailed it. No CU necessary. –MuZemike 17:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

block evasion. –MuZemike 17:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date March 12 2010, 22:43 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Europe22

KirkleyHigh, previously identified as 86.162.18.140 (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KirkleyHigh/Archive), is currently circumventing his fourth block of his first account (KirkleyHigh) with his IP adress 81.155.22.183 : he contributes on the same articles and makes exactly the same edits (removal of content, references, improper capitalization, removal of templates... compare for example [8] with [9]). A checkUser request is unnecessary, as it looks like a duck. Please see also this discussion.[10]. Regards,-- Europe22 (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

talk) 23:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 8 2010, 17:46 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Europe22

KirkleyHigh, currently indefinitely blocked for disruptive edits, has been blocked too with his IP adress 81.155.22.183 the last week. Now he circumventes his block with IP adress 86.172.190.60. It looks like a duck (compare [11] with [12]). -- Europe22 (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Looks like a duck to me, considering how much KirkleyHigh's IP changes I don't think it'll be possible to place a rangeblock here, but blocking the IP might achieve something. SpitfireTally-ho! 17:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
information Administrator note IP blocked for 55 hours. TNXMan 20:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date May 8 2010, 09:29 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Europe22

Block evasion, as he is currently blocked with the IP adress 86.172.190.60 [13] and his account KirkleyHigh [14] + he continues to make disruptive edits (removal of maintenance templates, afd templates, non existing categories, false chart positions,[15] improper capitalization (such as "CD Single", "Chart Performance"),[16] addition of unsourced info[17]). All his changes are not bad, but he continues to neglect advices that were previously provided to him. Like his previous IP adresses, he contributes on the Take That and TV series related articles (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KirkleyHigh/Archive). A CheckUser request is unnecessary, as it looks like a duck. -- Europe22 (talk) 09:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk note: blocked by Cirt (talk · contribs), SpitfireTally-ho! 16:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
05 July 2010
Moved from
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mastermindofmusic/Archive ‎
 –  Clerk note: Tidying up old archives. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 00:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]


Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Mister sparky (talk)

sock of User:Mastermindofmusic. A look through the editing history makes it obvious Mister sparky (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk declined – It looks fairly clear that the IP is Mastermindofmusic from a non-CU standpoint. However, a quick spot check looks like there isn't any sign of abuse or anything. Can you provide any diffs of abuse, please? –MuZemike 07:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

also a sock from here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KirkleyHigh/Archive Mister sparky (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
information Administrator note Not much left to do here - the IP hasn't edited in days. Marking as closed. TNXMan 13:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: also noting that there was a lack of evidence to establish that this IP was used abusively. SpitfireTally-ho! 22:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
14 July 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Europe22

Mastermindofmusic is currently blocked after many disruptive edits. I think he is circumventing his block with a new IP adress, 86.163.246.200: compare this [18] [19] with this [20][21][22]. And I also think that KirkleyHigh (indefinitely blocked) and all his IP adresses (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KirkleyHigh/Archive) is the same user, as the edits are almost identical ("tracklistings" instead of "track listings", improper capitalization ("Of", "For", "The"...), removal of content including references and chart successions, etc). Most of the accounts are stale, but in this last case, it looks like a duck. A check of all the talk pages shows discussion is impossible. PS:Sorry for my bad English.

PS: Link between Mastermindofmusic and 81.153.251.130 (last IP of KirkleyHigh) can be proved with these edits : [23], [24].

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Clerk declined – Behavioral evidence clearly indicates that Mastermindofmusic and the IP are KirkleyHigh; no CU necessary. –MuZemike 19:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Mastermindofmusic's block is now indefinite and tagged as a sock of KirkleyHigh; IP blocked 1 week. –MuZemike 19:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

15 July 2010
Suspected sockpuppets

84.92.85.222 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))


Evidence submitted by Mister sparky (talk)

Sock of the blocked User:Mastermindofmusic, making EXACTLY the same edits to avoid the block Mister sparky (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mastermindofmusic TNXMan 14:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

20 July 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Mister sparky

making exactly the same edits to exactly the same articles, clear case of

WP:DUCK Mister sparky (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk note: moved from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/109.153.161.91, please see there for original page history, SpitfireTally-ho! 18:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note I'm not sure if there's anything left to do here. Both accounts are blocked and the IP hasn't edited in several days. If there's nothing else, I'll mark for close soon. TNXMan 19:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that we seem to be done here; I suspect the IP was hit by autoblock, which would explain their halt in editing. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KirkleyHigh/Archive also indicates that KirkleyHigh has moved on to a new IP since Mastermindofmusic was blocked (and hence since the IP above was (probably) auto blocked). Closing, SpitfireTally-ho! 19:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
26 July 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Europe22

Block evasion of Iamthechaser, previously Mastermindofmusic and KirkleyHigh, currently indefinitely blocked for disruptive edits. Same edits: improper capitalization ("CD Single, capitalization of minor words such as "A", "For", "The"), "tracklistings" instead of "track listings" in title section, removal of tags, etc... It looks like a duck. [25][26][27] Europe22 (talk) 09:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For more info, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KirkleyHigh/Archive

Iamthechaser user a new IP adress: 86.161.139.63. His edits such [28][29] are often reverted, as they don't comply with WP policies ("tracklistings" instead of "track listings"..., etc). The IP even contributed [30] on the

Kirkley Community High School, that clearly refers to his sockmaster, KirkleyHigh. -- Europe22 (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
information Administrator note Looks like everything is handled. TNXMan 20:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
01 August 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Mister sparky

obvious

Five related pages. Mister sparky (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
01 August 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Mister sparky

same as before

WP:DUCK Mister sparky (talk) 17:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note Blocked 31 hours. Elockid (Talk) 18:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

04 August 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Europe22

New block evasion by KirkleyKing/Mastermindofmusic and his IPs currently blocked (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KirkleyHigh/Archive) . Looks like a duck : same kinds of edits (improper capitalization ["The", "A", "Of"...], removal of space between templates, categories and interwikis...) and almost same IP adress as previously. Should be blocked per

WP:ILLEGIT: "Circumventing policies or sanctions" (Policies apply per person, not per account. (...) Using a second account to violate policy will cause any penalties to be applied to your main account, and in the case of sanctions, bans, or blocks, evasion causes the timer to restart.) + "Editing logged out in order to mislead" (Editing under multiple IP addresses may be treated the same as editing under multiple accounts). Regards Europe22 (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note Blocked 31 hours. Elockid (Talk) 12:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

06 August 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Europe22

Block evasion of 81.151.181.48, also KirleyHigh/Mastermindofmusic (both indefinitely blocked; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KirkleyHigh/Archive). He is circumventing his block with the IP 86.161.143.112 previously identified to KirkleyHigh. He continues to make disruptive edits, including removal of template and tag maintenance, improper capitalization (CD Single...) and also in section headings, "tracklistings" instead of "track listings", removal of space between categories and interwikis, deletion of sourced content, etc... [38][39][40]. However, messages about these issues have been provided many times on his various talk pages but he continues to neglect them and discussion is impossible [41][42]. In addition, there is a problem about the accuracy of the changes: for example, on the "Back for Good" article, he (his alternate accounts / IPs, including 86.162.18.140, 81.155.22.183, 81.153.251.130, 86.139.53.78) changed many times the track listings [43][44][45][46][47][48][49]. Other users expressed concerns about the accuracy of his changes on TV series articles (see these talk pages [50][51]). He made plenty of important changes (+ unsourced) in a very short time, and therefore it's difficult to check their accuracy. Europe22 (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Looks like the 31-hour block didn't cut it. IP now blocked for 2 weeks. –MuZemike 14:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

06 August 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Mister sparky

clear case of

WP:DUCK. makes it so obvious every time by making exactly the same edits to exactly the same articles, and also saying "i am not kirkleyhigh" before you've even said anything about that. Mister sparky (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note Already blocked by HJ Mitchell. Marking for close. TNXMan 18:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notify Me\ 18:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
25 September 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Mister sparky

making exactly the same edits to

WP:DUCK Mister sparky (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Confirmed that this account is the same as Mastermindofmusic (talk · contribs), who was previously blocked as a sock of KirkleyHigh. TNXMan 15:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

27 September 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Mister sparky

screams

WP:DUCK, another sock User:JazzyJeff101 was indef blocked yesterday. Mister sparky (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
13 January 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

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

KirkleyHigh, Mastermindofmusic (both blocked, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KirkleyHigh/Archive), multiple IP used as socks and DoctorMaster2010 do exactly the same edits [52][53][54]: improper capitalization, disruptive edits, "tracklistings" instead of "track listings", etc. Looks like a

WP:DUCK. Europe22 (talk) 10:15, 13 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
  • WP:DUCK, I've blocked and tagged the sock. The IPs haven't edited in a few days and are relatively old for a block now, but relist if new things happen. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
22 January 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

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

86.147.13.195, previously identified as a sock of KirkleyHigh, Masterminofmusic, DoctorMaster2010 and many others, is currently editing WP in violation of his numerous blocks, with a new account: PlanetJedward2011 (for the full history, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KirkleyHigh/Archive). In spite of many advices which have been provided to him in the past (see the talk pages of his various accounts/IPs), he continues to neglect warnings about improper capitalizations, disruptive edits, removal of maintenance tags and sockpuppetry, etc... It's a

WP:DUCK, please compare [55] and [56]. Sorry for my bad English! Europe22 (talk) 20:19, 22 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
  • WP:DUCK I've blocked PlanetJedward2011. And as the IP has now not been used in eleven days, I'm going to leave it alone. Relist if it becomes active. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
10 February 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

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

Please compare: [57][58][59]; and [60][61]. Removal of maintenance tags, improper capitalizations, etc [62], as always...

WP:DUCK. The full history is here : Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KirkleyHigh/Archive Europe22 (talk) 23:16, 10 February 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

All registered accounts  Confirmed, along with one IP and another range. –MuZemike 23:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

14 September 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


I am unfamiliar with the sockmaster and have no opinion on this matter. I was concerned with the apparent role account and was looking at his/her user pages. I noticed that another editor tagged BSB as a suspected sockpuppet of KirkleyHigh, and even reverted the removal of the tag by

WP:DUCK, but not bothering to open an SPI. I will alert that editr momentarily, and ask that evidence be presented here. LadyofShalott 01:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by other users

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

Hi! I tagged this user as a sockpuppet of KirkleyHigh because to me it's a clear

WP:DUCK, as I have been watching this user and his multiple accounts/IPs since about two years. He always contribute on the articles related to music and TV series and made the same kind of edits, whatever accounts he use. For example, on the "Here with Me" article, BSBOfficialEditor and 86.161.239.140 (previously identified to KirkleyHigh, see the IP's talk page and the sockpuppet investigations) both replaced "track listing" by "tracklisting", added exactly the same track listings, formats and lengths of each track, removed space between refs/template, template/categories, categories/interwikis (compare this with this). All IPs/accounts are also known for adding improper caps in the songs titles, removing tag without adressing the issue and gathering the whole content of a section into a sole paragraph. For my part, I decided to no longer report the new cases of sockpuppetry, as this serves nothing: generally after investigations, the account is indefinitely blocked, but the user continue to edit with other accounts or IPs. PS: Sorry for my bad English! --Europe22 (talk) 07:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Tagging without getting the sock blocked is useless. As long as we're having this conversation now, are there other suspected socks (whether you've already tagged them or not) that could be added to this investigation? LadyofShalott 10:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also found this and this interesting in terms of editing patterns. Based on that I was tempted to checkuser myself, but noticed this and felt it'd be good to discuss first to confirm that one is warranted. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Other socks can be found here (I think that many of them are stale now). Those who are not listed on the sockpuppet investigations/KirkleyHigh/Archive page were not reported to administrators for investigations. I remember I saw at least two or three IPs and another account used by KirkleyHigh/BSB, but I didn't tag them, as I'm tired of this situation and I can't spent more time on Wikipedia for the moment. BSBOfficialEditor (and his previous accounts) has made edits in which I see a mix of good and bad things, major issues being... 1/ he almost always refuses to discuss with those who disagree with his changes. 2/ he continues to ignore the good advices (mostly related to MOS) left on his talk(s) page(s). 3/ he makes drastic changes that are often unhelpful. 4/ In the past, some Wikipedians have expressed concerns on the accuracy of his changes, and it's difficult to check all of them, as he is rather prolific. 5/ he uses plenty of IPs or accounts in violation of WP policies. --Europe22 (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely a sock considering the edits and the affinity for Peter Andre. — Legolas (talk2me) 10:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Clerk note: Yeah, I'd like some information on this one as well. Not really seeing it... — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that I do have checkuser and feel it is appropriate here, but I've done checkusers very infrequently, so a second opinion is prudent from one with the tools. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note Alright, thanks for the details, folks. I've blocked and tagged BSB on behavioral grounds. As a sidenote, a checkuser wouldn't be viable in this case: the master and their socks are stale by quite some time. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
22 September 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Block evasion of KirleyHigh/BSBOfficialEditor/86.161.139.63 (the full history here). He started to use his former account StayAnotherDay22 (20 September) when BSB was blocked (18 September). A duck: compare this with this (the last phrase of the lead section merged into the preceeding paragraph, "UK CD1", "French CD Single", "Supreme Hits", removal of the word "Format". Europe22 (talk) 09:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

StayAnotherDay22 is  Confirmed as being the same as BSBOfficialEditor (talk · contribs). TNXMan 14:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked SAD22 and tagged as confirmed based upon this. LadyofShalott 14:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
02 October 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Hello, I used to help edit the page Celebrity Juice, adding guests and such. At the end of the last series earlier this year, I started to see a user named OfficialBSB start to make drastic edits to the page such as integrating the 24pp episode and adding extraneous columns. I tried to talk to him through his talk pages but he would only just revert my edits without discussion. This went on for a couple of months. I tried to reason with him, but he never listened. After a while, the edit war stopped. But then at the start of the most recent series, it started again. At first he would make tiny edits like insist that certain celebrities were panelists, but then he started to make more drastic edits. Some of the edits were false, like for example with Rufus Hound. Hound only joined the show in Series 2. Yet OfficialBSB edited the page saying that Hound had been a main cast member all the time. That is wrong, but this user would not listen.

A while ago I spoke to a user named Fatty2k10, who agreed with me and he in turn wrote to an editor named Casliber who tried to ease the peace and warned OfficialBSB and asked him to discuss things in the talk pages . However, OfficialBSB continued to make useless edits without discussing on the talk page. So, Casliber decided to protect the page. This meant I was not able to contribute anymore.

I had also noticed that OfficialBSB was also accused of being a sockpuppet. I then noted a few weeks ago that this account had been blocked. The same user then was going under the name StayAnotherDay on the Celebrity Juice page and that account was blocked too. Now I am seeing a user CelebJuiceUploader using the same M.O. I have noticed in his contribution log that he is editing the same shows and now to my horror, he is making drastic edits to the Celebrity Juice page, ones that he's been doing since he was OfficialBSB. He is becoming very disruptive and annoying. You can't seem to talk to him and his edits are bad, some of them are not even correct. Due to the page being protected, Fatty2k10 is helping me contain CelebJuiceUploader but he just comes back and reverts Fatty2k10's edits.

Would it be possible to look into this? Maybe, check out the Celebrity Juice and revert his edits. Perhaps you could warn him about his disruptive edits, and compare his edit history to that of OfficialBSB and StayAnotherDay and see if he is a candidate for a sockpuppet investigation. Even though I cannot edit that page anymore, he is still making drastic major edits that are not useful and will not listen to anyone. I would like to nip this one in the bud. All the other pages that I contribute to do not cause me this much grief as we are able to come to some agreement concerning edits. We actually talk about why we did something. Imagine that.

Feel free to contact me with any more questions. Thanks in advance. 70.53.223.76 (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)samusek2[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

70.53.... had approached me about this issue, as I had started a previous report and made a related block after yet another one recently. I'm not as famailiar with this case as some other editors, however, and encouraged the IP editor to bring it here. As this appears to be a frequent repeat customer, checkuser may be helpful to route out any sleeper accounts. LadyofShalott 20:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm endorsing this for confirmation and sleepers. StayAnotherDay22 (talk · contribs) should be usable for a checkuser. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Confirmed. Unable to check for sleepers due to the size of the range, however there were no other (unblocked) accounts on the IPs this account had used.
      a/c) 23:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
22 April 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

Passes

Dale Smith (The Bill)
into list articles when that was unnecessary.

Because the sock passes the duck test I've already blocked it, however requesting Checkuser to make sure there are no sleepers, according to the conversation on my talk page, this user has a habit of just re-creating accounts if they're blocked. 5 albert square (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Just added another IP, found

Dale Smith (The Bill) was moved moments after Callum Stone, the same reason given.--5 albert square (talk) 15:02, 22 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

Nothing else found, but it looks like you got the right one, though. --MuZemike 16:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

06 February 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Five (band) and Liberty X. It also looks likely that these are both sockpuppets of User:KirkleyHigh: these edits are in similar areas as sockpuppet User:BSBOfficialEditor, IWannaABillionaire started editing a few days after User:WhatTheWorldNeedsNow was blocked, and there has been a similar lack of understanding of copyright (compare: [67][68]). Peter James (talk
) 22:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Any response from IWannaABillionaire may be on the user's talk page as the account is currently blocked. Peter James (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2013 (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
  • CheckUser requested - Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention - The connection between the two recent socks is clear. In the week Jazzy has existed, he has edited 72 pages, including 8 that overlap with Wanna's history [69]. On top of that, he was registered mere hours after Wanna's last edit. There's also a similar obsession with uploading album covers. Requesting checkuser to clarify the relationship to older socks. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking into this further, I decided checkuser isn't necessary. Wanna and Jazzy are clearly the same person based on evidence presented earlier, and with wikichecker and behavioral results, they are also identical to Kirkley's most recent confirmed socks. Blocked, tagged, and closing. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
23 February 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


User started soon after the last accounts were blocked, and has edited in the same areas including

Roulette (Blue album) both created by User:IWannaABillionaire; the File:Emelisandelive.jpg page is similar to uploads by recent sockpuppets. Peter James (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2013 (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
  • CheckUser requested - Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention - Editor interaction utility shows that in his short tenure on Wikipedia (which began after Kirkley's most recent sock was blocked), he has managed to edit many of the same articles, in a similar manner. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed with
    (ʞlɐʇ) 05:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
16 March 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Noticed a

WP:DUCK pattern with the username and the mostly unexplained edits, particularly on pop music articles. Account began shortly after block of User:NeverGetWhatYouBargainedFor e.g. genre tampering and formatting issues with Back Again... No Matter What, previously edited by User:WhatTheWorldNeedsNow, a previous sock here. Checkuser at an admin or clerk's discretion. Dl2000 (talk) 03:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Perhaps these checks will help - ThreeSpoonsofSuga vs WhatTheWorldNeedsNow; ThreeSpoonsofSuga vs KirkleyHigh Dl2000 (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse Dl2000's analysis of the evidence above. ThreeSpoonsofSuga is beyond a reasonable doubt a sockpuppet of KirkleyHigh. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2013 (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
  •  Clerk note: Could you please provide some diffs. We're really backlogged and if you provide diffs it really expedites the process. NativeForeigner Talk 19:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • CheckUser requested - Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention - Looks extremely similar, but a CU using CU data from the archive would be ideal to both confirm the eery similarities in editing patterns as being socking, and to potentially catch any other accounts. NativeForeigner Talk 22:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed match to the previous two accounts in the archive. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Blocked, tagged. NativeForeigner Talk 02:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
03 March 2014
Suspected sockpuppets


Edit patterns on particular music and TV articles are

WP:DUCK
similar to the previous and numerous KirkleyHigh socks and focusing on many of the same articles.

  • First edit was a fairly full-blown new article for Rise (Shaggy album) on 23 May 2013; seems a tad impressive for an apparent newbie. Last KirkleyHigh sock determination was March 2013 (ThreeSpoonsofSuga)
  • User contribs generally shows a lack edit summaries, in general keeping with the other socks.
  • Editor Interaction tool findings with some of the previously blocked KirkleyHigh socks:
    • vs BSBOfficialEditor [70]
    • vs WhatTheWorldNeedsNow [71]
    • vs JazzyJeff101 [72]
    • vs IWannaABillionaire [73]
  • TheSilentWitness made an unexplained edit spree on Dalziel and Pascoe (TV series) from 27 May thru 28 July 2013; likewise, previous sock IWannaABillionaire made a massive series of unexplained edits on that article from 27 Jan 2012 rev hist; note that IWannaABillionaire's were completely expunged by admin action, therefore these won't be detected by the Editor Interaction tool.
  • Checkuser at admin/clerk discretion Dl2000 (talk) 02:41, 3 March 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
  • Behavioural evidence presented is enough for me to block. Suspected sock indef'd and tagged. Closing now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/KirkleyHigh/Archive&oldid=1079620323"