Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Engleham/Archive

Engleham

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

06 September 2012

Suspected sockpuppets

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

User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The behaviour from GhostOfEngleham's comments and editing matches Engleham's comments and edit styles. I've requested a CU as it could be possible for the user to create sleepers or has other accounts. Bidgee (talk) 01:37, 6 September 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

Clerk declined - The user doesn't appear terribly good at hiding his socking, has only one sock (thus far), and shouldn't have a need for socks after his two day block is up. I don't think that a CU is needed at this time. Both accounts are currently blocked (Ghost is indeffed) so I also see no need for further action. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See my above comment. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

10 September 2012

Suspected sockpuppets

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

User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

IP edits Engleham's User talk page with the same pertentious behavior. Less than 2 minutes later Engleham comes in and re-signs the IP address's. While this appears to be an accidental edit, I'd like to recommend that the IP address be placed in the Suspected Sockpuppets category as this editor shows a significant disrespect for WP policy/guidelines/consensus. Hasteur (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Re to clerk Note: User behind the keyboard has previously socked therefore it seems reasonable to slap the Suspected Sockpuppet tag on the IP so as to ensure there's no circumvention of scrutiny. The Editor seems to be strangely interested in US politics if the geolocation (to Austrailia) is to be believed. Hasteur (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand that he has abused the GhostOfEngleham (talk · contribs) account. However, the IP does not appear to have been used with the intent of evading either scrutiny or the block, and furthermore, it is now logged here. Obviously, if this IP starts pretending to be a different user, we could point to this and block it as an IP sock, but for now I do not see a violation of WP:ILLEGIT. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Clerk note: As you said, this appears to be an accidental edit while logged out, and there is no indication of abuse right now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

17 January 2014

Suspected sockpuppets

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

User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
Editor interaction utility

I can detect behaviors of Engleham and above IPs. Exhibit A; exhibit B George Ho (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are Engleham's deleted posts: exhibit C and exhibit D. George Ho (talk) 20:33, 17 January 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

Additional information needed George Ho Could you please add some more diffs of the IPs (especially the one which recently edited) making edits similar to Engleham or another blocked sock. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I looked at contributions, and Engleham doesn't contribute much elsewhere. Two IPs must have done something different. Moreover, I looked at this diff and found no similarities. Maybe that diff, but I'm not holding faith. Maybe this diff, but I'm not confident. The block period is over, and you can still pursue if you want. I'm likely going to give up if I can't find direct connections. I'm willing to give up this SPI because neither IPs are vandalizing at this time or all times. --George Ho (talk) 10:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Closing with no action. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

26 January 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

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

User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
Editor interaction utility

Accidental edit of own comment via IP. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 14:20, 26 January 2016 (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

Additional information needed - @EauZenCashHaveIt: Please, explain what is WP:ILLEGIT in those edits. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vanjagenije, I am not sure what to include here. The Holt talk page comment is entirely inappropriate, and the use of an anonymous IP may seem like a way to reduce incriminating evidence. The editor in question never responded to my question whether the edits are theirs. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 23:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking the master for two weeks for logged-put editing. Closing. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

18 May 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Portland29 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Skylark1966 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Grahamhigh (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
Editor interaction utility

Look at Talk:Full Service (book)#‎Proposed merge with Scotty Bowers. Probably Engleham is committing vote fraud to influence the outcome of the discussion. Compare this to that and that. Engleham was temporarily blocked once for sockpuppetry. George Ho (talk) 01:13, 18 May 2016 (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

The following accounts are Unlikely:
- Engleham
- Portland29
The remaining accounts are Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Probably meatpuppetry. I will issue warnings to them. Case closed. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]