Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Irvine22/Archive

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | Irvine22


Irvine22

Report date September 19 2009, 00:30 (UTC)
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by BritishWatcher (talk)

This user is clearly Irvine22 who was blocked earlier tonight BritishWatcher (talk) 00:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions

  Administrator note User:JonnieIrvine blocked indefinitely. User:Irvine22's block has been extended to 24 hours for the block evasion. MuZemike 02:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date January 10 2010, 17:40 (UTC)
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
edit
Evidence submitted by Snowded
edit

Irvine22 has just come off the latest block for disruption to various articles related to the Troubles. S/he is under a warning for a permanent ban Dick Stauner was created on the 10th Jan 10 and immediately moved into a series of disruptive edits to Troubles related articles. The pattern of the edits and their subjects is almost identical to that of Irvine22. These comprise small provocative word changes designed to inflame tensions. In the Stauner edits today we see the additional of "extensively" to "infiltrated" on the IRA article and the provocative use of British isles on the Republic of Ireland article. In addition Irvine22 has a detailed knowledge of the troubles and this is evident in Stauner as well - the use of a reference to Freddie Scappaticci for example. The IP address also carries out similar edits, but has a slightly different pattern on their talk page. Elonka has blocked Dic Stauner for 24 hours given the disruption and to allow us to sort out who is the sock master. Irvine22 is a strong suspect. --Snowded TALK 17:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties
edit

See Defending yourself against claims.

No, none of them are me as I expect will shortly be confirmed. Dick Stauner seems to be someone who has made a close study of my edits (much as you claim to have done, Snowded) but not close enough to know that inserting a fake quote - as he did at the Dirty protest article - would not be my style at all. Especially as said quote is basically an unpleasant jibe at socio-economic deprivation in the Ardoyne, about which I find nothing funny at all. Anyway, I'm pleased to see that Elonka seems to have taken this Stauner firmly in hand. His attempt at a frame-up was rather, well, flaccid. Irvine22 (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I have now raised some concerns about the way this whole matter has been handled here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Elonka_on_a_fishing_expedition.3F Irvine22 (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

When Dick Stauner made his confession to being Irvine22's sockpuppet he misspelled the name Irvine22 and used Irwin22 [1]. This may mean nothing but does put a little doubt in my mind. Also, Irvine22 has made no statement concerning this. There is not much doubt that both are Glaswegians as the word stauner is Glasgow slang and Irvine has already stated that he is a Glaswegian. I think a checkuser should be used to assert this sockpuppet claim. Jack forbes (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too am curious about the mis-spelling. Is it another person using the account to get Irvine22 blocked? or is it Irvine deliberately mis-spelling his name to plant doubt in us? GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be unwise to assume that an account set up for deceptive purposes is reliable about anything. It's just as likely that this is an attempt to get at Irvine22. Rhomb (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have to bracket the entire confession. If it was Irvine, he would very likely have misspellled it intentionally. If it wasn't, he might have misspelled it as well. It doesn't really say anything one way or the other. I, of course, have my suspicions, but I don't think they should play any part in the decision. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than taking my word for it, I'll give a link to the Glaswegian slang word. [2] Jack forbes (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(response to Elonka) If Dic Stauner is a vulgarity in Glasgow slang, keep in mind that Irvine attended the University of Glasgow, and is prone to speaking in Scottish slang. Also, has been blocked for suckpuppeteering and ban evasion before. It's all circumstantial, perhaps a CU would be able to tell us for sure. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The glaswegian element increases the evidence for it being Irvine (you learn something new every day) I suggest the check user is done. If its positive then permanent ban, and stand by for socks. If negative then he is on probation anyway, I would indef. until he shows evidence of being prepared to change. --Snowded TALK 23:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also worth checking is User talk:Jblev2. Too clever for a newbie by several miles (kms) RashersDogRusty (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look. Also, I just blocked Trickyjack (talk · contribs) for personal attacks today.[3] --Elonka 02:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good call, very similar pattern to Irvine22, Bobby Sands etc almost identical--Snowded TALK 07:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think in all fairness to Irvine, we should wait until he has a chance to defend him/herself. So far he hasn't responded. Dick Stauner could very well be a copy-cat editor.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit of a strecth. Irvine is... inimitable. Either way, his lack of defense in no way prohibits a CU from looking over the case. Certainly didn't either of the times I was accused of sockery. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trickyjack and the 86 IP are probably the same but I don't think they are Irvine different parts of the world. BigDunc 16:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Run the check-user. Whoever it is, he/she is being an annoyance. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
edit

I have indef blocked Dick Stauner (talk · contribs), both for disruption and for admitting to sockpuppetry.[4] It's also been pointed out that the name of the account may be a vulgarity in Glasgow slang.[5] My inclination is to also indef block Irvine22 (talk · contribs), who already has a long block log[6] and history of disruption. What do others think? --Elonka 20:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(followup) I have updated the above list with other recent disruptive accounts in the topic area. Checkuser verification would be appreciated to see if these are all the same individual. --Elonka 16:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status –   Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.

Those BT IPs will be difficult to tie to an account because of the nature of the ISP. I haven't found anything related to them. Dick Stauner may be editing through a hotspot, and it also   Inconclusive, though unlikely to be Irvine22. Trickyjack is also   Unrelated to Irvine22. Dominic·t 05:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser.
14 March 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


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

WP:Duck :latest in a series of socks with similar names, same obsession with one or two articles. Given that this happens every month or so any chance of a range block? Snowded TALK 11:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Account has now been blocked, so no need for direct action, but the persistent creation of socks is an issue if anything can be done about that --Snowded TALK 11:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

A range block should be considered, as the sock-master has a strange fetish/obsession. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
Agree, but persistent sock creation is, and we have this declaration that he intents to continue socking --Snowded TALK 04:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And another sock created more or less immediately --Snowded TALK 05:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's been blocked. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
28 March 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


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

A wikistalk report shows an interesting overlap between the two accounts. In addition to both accounts having a fixation with attempting to add negative information to articles about Irish republicans, there are slightly more diverse common articles such as Welsh people, Sectarianism in Glasgow, Rod Liddle, Countries of the United Kingdom and perhaps most tellingly Anjem Choudary. Both Irvine22 and Ivor Stoughton admit to being in America. I realise Irvine22 may be too old to be checked, but the history of the Dave Snowden article has many Irvine22 sockpuppets editing it recently, any with "Stauner" or similar in the name are him. O Fenian (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

This complaint is literally incomprehensible to me: the "Stauner" thing is especially baffling. Someone's having a laugh, for sure. However, I certainly do "admit" to being in America. Is that bad? Ivor Stoughton (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I did my own Wikistalk report. There is in fact a far greater overlap between my edits and those of O Fenian. I'm not him either! Here:

http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/wikistalk.py?namespace=0&user1=O Fenian&user2=Ivor Stoughton&user3=&user4=&user5=&user6=&user7=&user8=&user9=&user10= Ivor Stoughton (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder who Wikipéire is at the moment? LemonMonday Talk 18:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not me, I assure you. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

While Ivor Stoughton (talk · contribs) is technically   Unrelated, Basil Stauner (talk · contribs) is a   Confirmed match. TNXMan 15:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

21 April 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

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

Usual MO. Tendentious editing at Dave Snowden for sole purpose of hounding User:Snowded. Obvious WP:DUCK. Already tagged as suspected sock by User:GoodDay. RashersTierney (talk) 09:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

Given the behavioral pattern, especially in the more recent edits I think possible translates into is, even if there is any doubt some of the editors are clear vandalism. --Snowded TALK 22:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The obsession with Snowded & his bio article is overwhelmingly obvious. Those are both socks of Irvine. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit


22 April 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Another new sock. Nearly identical name, same issues. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

An IP range is required or the Dave Snowden article & related articles will have to be put on permanent protection. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
06 July 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Per discussion at the HeadleyDown case. For comparison, Baldassare della Staunere (talk · contribs) was recently blocked and tagged. Endorsing for confirmation and sleepers. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

I'm confused. I thought that blocked User:Stellas4lunch aka User:Trumpkin had "admitted" - here - to being User:Irvine22. I wouldn't be surprised if the claim was false, but has it been checked? Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its not clear if its Irvine, although given his obsessions its possible. However this case is more complex. Brenda Lo for example is a real person linked to the Australian NLP group with a clear link to a SPA who continues to edit the article and also has been making the Headley Down accusations, a common feature of all these editors. The IP added another editors name to the HeadleyDown report without initiating an SPI - something which was also done by ANJLP.

That IP is pretty clearly the former User:Action_potential whose page used to link to Comaze.com which is a site linked to the Australian NLP group run by one Scott Coleman. We have confirmation from Brenda Lo that IP is Scott and that she has been canvassed although some days later when the IP is made aware that an ANI report may be made, a denial follows. That creates a link to user:comaze who is subject to an Arbcom ruling re the NLP article.

We have a dedicated web site no less here and another here to recruit people to edit the article. That references user:AndyzB who has been making various accusations on two external sites here and here

We also have and other SPA User:Willyfreddy on the article as well as user:AJRG. So we have meat puppets, sock puppets and canvassing. I was going to put all of this on ANI over the weekend if the disruption continues, but being as this investigation was started I am posting it here. --Snowded TALK 12:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What we really need is more impartial editors. Its possible that those accounts were created by a skeptic pretending to be a proponent in order to create a straw man. Stranger things have happened on that article in the past. I'm happy to disclose my identity to a third party administrator but want my privacy protected. I do not want to mix my other wikipedia activities with this controversial article. Just to be clear, I have no association whatsoever with any of the editors named in this investigation. I'm just responding to the accusations made my Snowded above. This is a controversial topic and harassment has occurred both on and off wikipedia so you can understand why I choose to remain anonymous. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I;ve seen (and evidenced above) off wiki accusations against myself and one other editor. I haven't seen any harassment of you or pro-NLP editors. Do you have any diffs to support that statement? --Snowded TALK 13:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those sites have nothing to do with me personally although you don't know who I am. I do not consider myself pro or anti-NLP as I am attempting to be impartial as possible. I have read the research literature into NLP and training in psychology so I should be in a position to sit on the fence. I'd like to see the other editors follow suit. I'm certainly not going to disclose my identity by linking to specific cases of harassment or defamation on or off-wiki. I'm glad to see these socks caught but I think we need to look into who actually created these socks in the first place and what was their hidden agenda. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DQ - given its a mixture of canvassing/meat puppetry etc should it go to ANI or be raised as a new case here? --Snowded TALK 01:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is more information for now:
IP 122… is most likely the previous user Action Potential/Comaze and the owner of the NLP company as above, from talkpage edits[7][8][9][10], and from the user IPs [11].
IP 122...’s disruptive accusations were at firstly directed to Snowded and myself in April [12]
The meat/sockpuppet’s edits are of similar approach:
The edits are undiscussed[13][14] and attempt to force the edits into the article in the same way.
The disruptive accusations in edit summaries are similar [15][16][17][18]
Similar false claim of minor edits [19][20]
The accusations continued towards myself and Snowded, using similar edit summaries[21][22] [23][24]
The canvassing website text similar to IP 122...s: “He acts as the main sockpuppet defender, allowing expreme POV and the general d debunking and disparaging of the subject of NLP.” [25][26][27]
After the dismissed meatpuppet SPI, the accusations continue towards Snowded and myself today: [28] Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
04 November 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Previously brought up by User:O Fenian at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Irvine22/Archive#28 March 2011, but I feel a more in-depth at the Ivor Stoughton account is needed. First off we'll state the established fact that checkuser can't prove innocence, particularly when people admit to editing from different locations. So for that reason I'll be focussing on behavioural and other evidence, and checkuser will probably be irrelevant.

The Ivor Stoughton account was created at 05:26, 20 June 2010, just five hours after the last edit from known Irvine sockpuppet Dreary Steeples (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who had been blocked four days earlier. So the timing of the account creation is certainly consistent with being a reincarnation.

Let's start with the total number of Wikipedia editors in the United States (where both accounts admit to being), then start thinning the field based on behavioural evidence.

  • An old Irvine22 userpage confirms him to have lived in "Glesca" [Glasgow] as a boy, and attended Glasgow University, and is now in America. Similarly here he admits to being someone "who grew up in Belfast, and was a student in Glasgow before decamping to the U.S". Similarly Ivor also admits to being from the UK but lives in the United States.

So we can instantly thin the field to include only Wikipedia editors in the United States who are originally from the UK. Probably a small percentage, but still a large enough number of people I'd expect. So more thinning is needed.

So now we're down to Wikipedia editors in the United States who are originally from the UK who edit mainly Troubles related articles. I won't attempt to hazard a guess at a percentage, but it definitely thins the field even more.

  • Both Ivor and Irvine have edited the Anjem Choudary article, to add negative information. Anjem Choudary is a controversial Islamist in the UK, completely unrelated to Ivor/Irvine's usual editing area.

So now we're down to Wikipedia editors in the United States who are originally from the UK who edit mainly Troubles related articles and edit Anjem Choudary in a negative way. I'd imagine we're thinning the field even more now.

  • Both Ivor and Irvine have edited the Rod Liddle article. Rod Liddle is a somewhat controversial journalist in the UK, completely unrelated to Ivor/Irvine's usual editing area.

So now we're down to Wikipedia editors in the United States who are originally from the UK who edit mainly Troubles related articles and edit Anjem Choudary in a negative way and edit Rod Liddle. I'd imagine we're thinning the field even more now.

  • Both Irvine and Ivor have edited the Welsh people article. Irvine's style of editing is detailed in the discussion linked to, the constant attempts to add unsourced qualifiers and clarifications in a similar manner to how Ivor did.

So now we're down to Wikipedia editors in the United States who are originally from the UK who edit mainly Troubles related articles and edit Anjem Choudary in a negative way and edit Rod Liddle and edit Welsh people in an attempt to add unsourced qualifiers. I'd imagine we're thinning the field even more now.

  • Both Irvine and Ivor happen to edit Calabasas, California. Note the addition of "Calmont School" by Irvine and of "on Las Virgenes Road" by Ivor, both additions suggest a degree of local knowledge. Neither account has an extensive history of editing articles about American places, so is it really just coincidence they both happen to edit that particular article about a small city in California in a way suggesting local knowledge?

So now we're down to Wikipedia editors in the United States who are originally from the UK who edit mainly Troubles related articles and edit Anjem Choudary in a negative way and edit Rod Liddle and edit Welsh people in an attempt to add unsourced qualifiers and have apparently local knowledge of Calabasas in California. I'd imagine we're thinning the field even more now. I could carry on with a few more articles, but I'm sure you're getting the point by now. Neither Ivor nor Irvine have extensive editing histories - 245 unique pages for Ivor across all namespaces and 211 for Irvine across all namespaces. So can it really be a coincidence that despite their main editing area being Troubles related and their unique pages edited count being so low, each account has edited several common pages completely unrelated to the Troubles? Can it really be a coincidence that the former is true *and* they both happen to originally be from the UK and now living in the United States? Just in case you're not convinced yet, we'll examine another behavioural aspect.

I'll start with Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Irvine22

  • Ivor did not edit from 07:01, 25 June 2011 until 05:48, 6 July 2011
  • Ivor did not edit from 17:12, 18 June 2011 until 07:01, 25 June 2011
  • Ivor was editing up until 03:24, 28 March 2011, then stopped, restarting at 13:55, 28 March 2011 for 2 minutes, then stopped, restarting at 18:10, 28 March 2011. Although not a clean "Ivor-sock-block-back to Ivor" pattern like the others, there is no real overlap of editing.
  • Ivor did not edit from 17:12, 18 June 2011 until 07:01, 25 June 2011
  • Ivor did not edit from 17:01, 16 April 2011 until 00:50, 23 April 2011
  • Ivor did not edit from 07:01, 25 June 2011 until 05:48, 6 July 2011
  • Ivor did not edit from 17:35, 6 July 2011 until 21:01, 9 July 2011
  • Ivor did not edit from 21:49, 8 August 2010 until 03:42, 13 August 2010
  • Ivor did not edit from 03:14, 25 July 2010 until 21:08, 8 August 2010
  • Ivor did not edit from 17:01, 16 April 2011 until 00:50, 23 April 2011

Now for Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Irvine22

  • Ivor did not edit from 17:01, 16 April 2011 until 00:50, 23 April 2011
  • Ivor did not edit from 00:38, 25 September 2010 until 02:53, 27 September 2010
  • Ivor did not edit from 21:16, 30 September 2010 until 00:36, 7 October 2010
  • Ivor did not edit from 00:50, 23 April 2011 until 21:58, 28 April 2011
  • Ivor did not edit from 08:10, 27 December 2010 until 01:39, 2 January 2011, and from 22:48, 14 March 2011 until 01:58, 16 March 2011
  • Ivor did not edit from 06:00, 1 May 2011 until 03:23, 7 May 2011
  • Ivor did not edit from 13:57, 28 March 2011 until 18:10, 28 March 2011
  • Ivor did not edit from 00:30, 23 October 2010 until 02:41, 27 October 2010
  • Ivor did not edit from 06:48, 3 November 2010 until 23:48, 17 November 2010
  • Ivor did not edit from 03:27, 30 October 2011 until 21:05, 1 November 2011
  • Ivor did not edit from 06:00, 1 May 2011 until 03:23, 7 May 2011, and from 16:39, 14 May 2011 until 17:41, 19 May 2011
  • Ivor did not edit from 06:48, 3 November 2010 until 23:48, 17 November 2010
  • Ivor did not edit from 03:27, 30 October 2011 until 21:05, 1 November 2011
  • Ivor did not edit from 00:45, 10 March 2011 until 00:51, 11 March 2011, from 00:04, 12 March 2011 until 20:43, 13 March 2011, and from 20:44, 13 March 2011 until 22:42, 14 March 2011
  • Ivor did not edit from 00:30, 23 October 2010 until 02:41, 27 October 2010
  • Ivor did not edit from 22:48, 14 March 2011 until 01:58, 16 March 2011
  • Ivor did not edit from 17:35, 6 July 2011 until 21:01, 9 July 2011 (NOTE: Although there's still a gap, I'm not including this sock in any subsequent stats. The online time is too early, and mass reverting HighKing on British Isles related articles with summaries including "rvv" isn't really Irvine's style AFAIK)
  • Ivor did not edit from 03:27, 30 October 2011 until 21:05, 1 November 2011
  • Ivor did not edit from 17:01, 16 April 2011 until 00:50, 23 April 2011
  • Ivor did not edit from 18:28, 20 June 2010 until 15:11, 21 June 2010 , and from 23:22, 3 July 2010 until 02:28, 21 July 2010
  • Ivor did not edit from 21:36, 18 March 2011 until 05:59, 21 March 2011, and from 17:01, 16 April 2011 until 00:50, 23 April 2011
  • Ivor did not edit from 00:50, 23 April 2011 until 21:58, 28 April 2011

And that's all folks for socks. Now you'll notice that out of the 31 socks that have edited since the creation of the Ivor account, all 31 just happened to have edited at times that correspond with gaps (almost always significant gaps, not just a gap of an hour or so) in Ivor's editing. Not only that, but the times of day that they edit aren't inconsistent with Ivor's editing. If it was 4 or 5 socks it could just be written off as coincidence, but 31??? Really???? The closest any sock ever edited to Ivor was the Bonnie Stauner account where Ivor edited 35 minutes before (but did not edit again until over 24 hours after Bonnie had stopped editing), which doesn't mean anything if the locations they edit from are anywhere close by. That particular gap shouldn't be taken a benchmark either, plenty of known Irvine sockpuppet activity tends to take place on *days* when Ivor isn't editing, not when there's a gap of a couple of hours. Some of the periods will also benefit from a more in-depth analysis, in particular when there has been a flurry of sockpuppet activity from multiple accounts, some of which were editing for longer than the typical lifespan of a "Stauner" account (usually blocked within hours)

  • The Registrar (ignoring the single edit made in March), StaunerMacStauner, Ingolfur Staunersson, StaunerOStauner and 12.193.76.178 edited from 22:06, 19 April 2011 until 17:09, 22 April 2011. Ivor did not edit from 17:01, 16 April 2011 until 00:50, 23 April 2011. Is that flurry of sockpuppet activity happening at the same time as Ivor not editing for almost a week really a coincidence?
  • Baldassare della Staunere and Brenda Lo88 (both harassing User:Snowded on Neuro-linguistic programming) were active from 21:01, 19 June 2011 until 00:45, 25 June 2011. Ivor did not edit from 17:12, 18 June 2011 until 07:01, 25 June 2011. Is another flurry of sockpuppet activity happening at the same time as Ivor not editing for almost a week really another coincidence?

As noted above, Ivor resumed editing at 07:01, 25 June 2011. However only one edit was made, and then this happened.

  • ANJPL and Librazee (again, both harassing User:Snowded on Neuro-linguistic programming) were active from 00:43, 28 June 2011 until 03:06, 6 July 2011. Ivor did not edit from 07:01, 25 June 2011 until 05:48, 6 July 2011. Is yet another flurry of sockpuppet activity happening at the same time as Ivor not editing for over a week really yet another coincidence?

In my opinion, there are too many coincidences to be ignored. Taken individually they could be ignored or explained away, but when you get coincidence after coincidence after coincidence after coincidence, they can't be ignored or explained away. It stretches credibility well past breaking point that Ivor Stoughton can be anything but a reincarnation of Irvine22. 2 lines of K303 12:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

  • Obviously that also depends on whether Stellas4trumpstaunerson is actually Stellas4lunch, or Irvine pretending to be them. A quick look at the IP listed in the Stellas4lunch SPI shows it's UK based, unlike Irvine. 2 lines of K303 13:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One Night in Hackney probably should have informed me of this report, as required by policy, and disclosed that he and I are currently involved in a (rather civil, I had imagined) content dispute at Continuity IRA. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stoughton, no such notification is required per policy. The wording is "You may wish to notify the accused." And if you're not watching your own sock report page that's your own problem. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 16:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! Now it needs to be addressed.--Domer48'fenian' 16:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, having read through the verbiage of this report - which I really should have been notified of - I think it should be relatively easy for a Checkuser to investigate the veracity of the claims. Take a selection of the purported socks which have edited within hours or minutes of myself. Check their IPs against my IP (I always edit from my home which is indeed in Calabasas, California as IP information will confirm) and establish the relative locations of the purported socks. For instance User:Librazee and User:ANJPL supposedly edited a couple of hours before me on July 6th. User:Bonnie Stauner supposedly edited 35 minutes before me on March 14. User:Brenda Lo88 edited six-and-a-half hours after me on June 25th. Check that group of IPs and see where they are in the world relative to my location. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 17:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the policy says he "may wish to notify" you, not that he is required to. And, as he stated right at the top, "checkuser cannot prove innocence, especially when it involves people who admit to editing from different locations." It's tiresome having to point this stuff out to you, especially after you claim to have "read through the verbiage," apparently not very carefully. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 17:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously weren't reading very carefully yourself. I do not admit to editing from different locations, in fact I made it clear that I edit only from my home in Calabasas, CA, which is readily verifiable by Checkuser. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's glaringly obvious he is Irvine, who has admitted to editing from different locations, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HelloAnnyong&diff=prev&oldid=425351816 ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 17:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my line of work "it's glaringly obvious" is the sort of assertion that people make when they have a weak case. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and as for the timing of the creation of my account: I created it specifically to edit Angela Rumbold on the day she died. She used to be my MP in London. (And I have never lived in either Belfast or Glasgow, did not attend the University of Glasgow, and have never indicated that I did.)Ivor Stoughton (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I will observe that of the 31 accounts purported to be socks of mine - or I of them I'm unclear which - the large majority edited for a matter of minutes on a single day. It is hardly surprising that my editing, which has been rather occasional over the past year and a half, wouldn't overlap with such fleeting contributions. I have to wonder how much of an overlap there might be between their edits and those of the reporting editor, say, or anyone reading this? Ivor Stoughton (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be putting up quite a fuss, for an innocent editor. Normally, an innocent editor laughs off or ignore SPI on him/herself. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The way I look at it is that User:One Night In Hackney obviously put a great deal of time into this report, time he won't get back. I've no doubt he feels he is acting in good faith in this matter, and I in turn feel I should do him the courtesy of treating this seriously and offering a measure of response. (But, yes, it would have been nice to receive the courtesy of a notification!) Ivor Stoughton (talk) 20:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence is quite thorough, and I'd expect nothing less from Hackney! I've too have read through it all, and support Hackney's conclusions. --Domer48'fenian' 20:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Domer48 supports Hackney's conclusions? That's a surprise, I must say! Ivor Stoughton (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay supports Hackney's conclusions, too. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the previous pattern was for IRvine22 to maintain a reasonable position, while running socks. However he made sure (and boasted of his ability ) to use different IP locations. He was finally caught on behaviour grounds. --Snowded TALK 12:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strange that you should think Irvine22's behaviour "reasonable". From what I gather their main contribution was making provocative and unsourced additions to Troubles articles, then engaging in edit wars and interminable argumentation on Talk pages. Classic battleground behaviour, in fact. They also never created any articles. I haven't been the most productive content provider in my time on Wikipedia, but my behaviour has been nothing like that. I have had no blocks, no edit wars, hardly any conflict even. The closest I've come to conflict is just in the past few weeks, when the reporting editor and a few others who have commented above have been serially reverting my edits to Continuity IRA - edits that are intended to add balance to the article from a mainstream Irish Republican perspective, oddly enough Ivor Stoughton (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FOr most of his history Irvine avoided edit wars etc. His blocks eventually came for civility. This link has been raised before and I am ambiguous as to if I believe it or not, the additional technical evidence however starts to persuade me that this needs proper investigation. --Snowded TALK 19:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

In addition to the thorough evidence presented above, there is some corresponding technical information. Sancho Standa (talk · contribs) and Staun Quixote (talk · contribs) are, unsurprisingly,   Confirmed matches to each other. Ivor Stoughton shares a geographic location and some technical info (but not an ISP) with those two accounts. TNXMan 14:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

18 February 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


This account recently opened an SPI case making an attempt to connect Snowded to an account blocked more than five years ago. Given that the account was registered less than a week ago, they certainly do seem to have a lot of knowledge about old Wiki cases. In their first edit - to a talk page, no less - they note that "I was involved in editting this article about 6 to 7 years ago". A bunch of Irvine's socks also spent a bunch of time editing neuro-linguistic programming, so this is just another account in that progression. Between that and the perennial harassment of Snowded, I think it's worth taking a look here. There's an LTA case for Irvine22, but as far as I can tell all the confirmed socks are stale. Still, Staunley Baldwin (talk · contribs) was blocked in December as a possible sock, so maybe we can run a check against that. Self endorsing. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

I rejoined wikipedia because I noticed the extreme similarities on the neuro linguistics programming page as to when I was involved when the headleydown debacle took place 6-7 years ago. I am trying to remember my old username. if you would try looking this one up it might clarify that it says who I say I am. JustinFA, and I am reluctant to give that information as it has personally revealing content. You should also note that the user I did discuss with when headleydown was removed did say something to the effect of. "Well when you use two computers as socks in the same university you are going to get caught." if any of this knowledge reflects what happenned back then I would say that my identity is in good stead, and I am who I say I am. A proper investigation into the snowded/headleydown case should continue. Anything I know that is from back then should be used as witness testimony. The knowledge I have provided I think if people will recall is correct. Headleydown has done a lot of damage and it is noted as per istb351's link on his talk page. I recognised immediately the name of headlydown and the content and themes of the article are the same with even minute details being editted to headleys standard at that time. I feel on my page from which you have drawn a counter appeal discussing snowden as a sock for headlydown there is far more evidence there than what is presented here against me.

I should also like to say that witness testimony in a court of law is considerred strongest evidence... you would be foolish to ignore it.

@ helloannyong, you have immediately dismissed my claims without further query and then put your own counterclaim in, I would suggest that you can ask me any question that you like on the matter of which you have not, neither have you tried to ascertain my identity in any genuine form toward me if you had tried this without making quick judgements then that would have been in good faith. If you had gone about it this way then you could come to a consensus with more information at hand. also by being quick to judge perhaps you should remove your decision on my allegged snowden/headleydown sockpuppet page and let someone who is more objective on the subject or remembers events more clearly from that time to peruse the information for a judgement pertaining to the matter at hand. I would only say that you are familiar with Irvine22's handy work and not headlydowns of which i am very familiar with. I immediately recognised it when I recently read the article and subsequently rejoined wikipedia editorials to announce it.

I have since perused Irvine22's page of which there does seem to be a conflict between snowded and himself. Although I do not see any relationship regarding the NLP article. which would lead me to ask.

How would Irvine22 know that metaphor is part of the Milton Model? That the concept of tacit knowledge is similar to NLP modelling? That David Snowdens presentation for his business Cognitive edge is marketted like any NLP course as well as the concepts he talks about presented in a format similar to NLP Teachers? This knowledge could only come from someone who has knowledge of the field how it is marketed and what the two fields intentions are in comparison. it is a case of McDonalds versus Burger King. Of which can I ask, am I able to edit the Burger King page and say that the burgers are better at Burger King? that is a joke really but I see no difference as to what Mr Snowden is doing here to promote his business ideas.

Do you have Headlydowns editted versions of the NLP article from back then to compare to recent edits? This could be very revealing. Also if you have any questions I am happy to answer them.

Thank you for your time.

I should also say if I am blocked etc... I will not come back. I don't lie about my identity and dont feel I need to. I dont do things that I will regret or feel I have to cover up with lies or making new profiles. If I am gone I will be gone and satisfied that I tried to do the right thing. and to be honest Headley was a burden last time as this new case is to me as well. If kicked banned whatever, it will be a burden off my mind. That by the laws of my own integrity that I can not return to it.

However there would be only one way for me to do so in hindsight and that would be to identify myself with enemesis or the othe names that that I have referred to as my past identities on wikipedia editorials. It would be honest. And that is the way that I would do it, although it would not be likely.

regards.

Enemesis (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is an issue of natural justice here, as the SPI has been self-referred (nemo debet esse iudex in propria causa). Although the clerk-approvant was entirely right to refuse to endorse the frivolous request of Enemesis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for an SPI into Snowded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), it does seem somewhat irregular that the same clerk has subsequently submitted an SPI against that user and has endorsed it themselves. On behaviour alone, there is no obvious similarity with Irvine22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I would be more comfortable if another CU clerk endorsed this. ISTB351 (talk) 04:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, it's more per WP:BOOMERANG than anything else. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 06:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing you can scrutinise is my identity. U seem to be using the boomerang thing as an excuse to use such a concept with very little proof or anything else to work with. I have been honest. I came here to report something that was not right. and that is what I have done. if you cant handle an old member getting on to give some kind of testimony about socks from the past who may still be prevalent and that have been highly flammable toward other users and also expect that they are not still bitter over such experiences is quite unrealistic. I have also exclaimed that I might have been rude which is an admission of wrong doing on my behalf. I should like my original inquirey to remain open with someone who will look at the evidence with an open mind. otherwise wikipedia investigations could be impeded. professionalism is always highly regarded and shows balance in the indiviual as far as matters of contention are concerned. anyway this is getting boring. Headlydown is editting the article again having been invlolved with him in the past it is quite obvious to me. But then who am I? really? you may choose a ban on me over an experienced editor because I am unknown. It does not make anything I say any less true. Do as you will. Headly down wasn't just flaming people he was also vandalising the page to his specifications and almost getting away with it, with these kinds of attitudes I fear he may be successful this time. It's the reader that will have to suffer it from here on in, which to me the reader is the most valuable asset when writing a piece. I feel I can no longer refer people to the NLP page on wikipedia as a free reliable source of information and expect that they will identify what NLP is from the article. It is not clear enough of an article to say that it is informative. The reader would come to me and say that the NLP article said that neuro linguistics programming is crap by the shift of focus onto a list of professionals that are not even involved in the field. Of which I think is what David Snowden wants.

regards.

Enemesis (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irvine has run some socks on the NLP article so I can see the connection. Personally I thought both the editors on the HeadlyDown sock puppet report deserved a block for personal attacks, but working of resentment at not getting their way elsewhere is I suppose an excuse. Either way, I suspect that Enemesis is a meat puppet. The latest in a long series. An incomplete list is here. The deleted statement that they were not located in the same suburb as aother editors gives a clue that its one of the Australian rather than the US group. However the writing style is more like permanently banned User:Chuckfreyconsultant. There is a wider case that will go to ANI, but I think there is enough justification to check any new SPA on the NLP account, launching personal attacks against other SPAs and Irvine22 given the historical level of disruption. ----Snowded TALK 12:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me I did not say suburb I said vicinity. This is the only account I have access to, noone has talked to me about the matter, I work independently and am not manipulable. but thats just the beauty of me ;). I have identified who I am. There is no-one you can relate me to. My writing style is for this purpose otherwise I am quite approachable. Snowded has been described in behaviour to resemble headleydown and not just by me. NLPers are taught to be flexible in their behaviour and they have the skill to do it that would be the self hypnosis element doing its work. ie... when headley was banned I do not believe he was discouraged one bit from editting wikipedia but instead decided to tone down his persona in a new user profile so that he could continue after a bit of what eh would call "fun.". Snowdens own tenacity and determination speaks for itself, this too was characteristic of Headleydown. So far the profile fits accept that snowden now seems to have friends who will support him in the wikipedia arena. Also because he is personally identifiable it is even more important to be more acceptable with how he conducts his business on wikipedia. The contents and themes are the same as when headley was editing the article, helloannyong although I appreciate the sentiments to co editors has admitted that the application was a weak vendetta for my comments about Snowden. You may have to do better to prove any sock or meat puppetry on my behalf. however headleydowns and snowdens behaviour do present similarities in the context of the article and behaviour toward other editors. which has been noted by others who have noticed the same problems when working with snowded. Now I don't really care if you ban me, the information is there to do with as you will. I have done my best to outline the very similar attributes so that the information is there for you to use at your discretion. I will not be editting the article in any way Ii havent yet and I dont intend to. After this my presence will not be felt. My purpose is solely to demonstrate knowledge of headly down and how it is similar to Snowded. I only wish to help with what I knew to protect the article and that was my goal and it is what I have done.

regards.

Snowded I am actually interested in what you are teaching it does sound interesting, I just can't let you do this to the NLP article . That is all that this is about. Any other article you may be involved in I will not challenge. I am not writing them nor have an interest however as headleydown also had a dominant personality and presence in the article you too have demonstrated this ability. He did not deserve so much control and that is why he was subsequently banned. Now I am tired and if you have any questions please feel free to ask.

take care.

Enemesis (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I have ventured too far. After reading some of David Snowdens stuff on the cognitive edge site, I do realise he has a life that is public and relationships with people here on wikipedia that are important to him. This should also be protected. I will not harm someone like this but then I do not wish for an unfair article that will reach millions of people over time either. To go on would be a conflict in my values. I will pull out now. I realise that NLP is probably a pet hate to him. My recomendation would be that Snowded be blocked on the NLP article out of a conflict of interest where his personal life is concerned. However he likes it here and has contributed greatly to the site so should be allowed to continue editing. I would not take that away from him entirely.

regards to all.

Enemesis (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outside comment
edit

Why not just run an SPI on everybody involved at NLP & related articles. That way, the innocent will have their accounts cleared & the guilty will be blocked. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although that would apply to me, it might be a useful way of clearing the air. The endless accusations of sock puppetry (and for that matter its likely existence) on NLP are making the editing environment troublesome. Perhaps it is now time to clean the Augean Stables. ISTB351 (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ok with me as well, although I think the real issue is meat puppets ----Snowded TALK 01:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

any kind of investigation to seperate the genuine editors on the article is absolutely fine by me too. If there are people using sock puppetry or meat puppetry to express a point corrupts the article. this was not prevalent on our side of the fence when headley was involved and it is disturbing to see it here tbqh. I would say that Snowded has very quickly tried to prove sock puppetry on someone elses behalf and after not being able to he has moved to try proving meat puppetry. Snowden I think you will find that my POV is too unique to prove either.

Regards...

Enemesis (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

See results below. TNXMan 16:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

19 February 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Although there have already been two SPIs into whether Ivor Stoughton is a sock of Irvine22, the existence of a user account with the name Ivor Stoughton-Stauner is surely indicative that Irvine22 is behind at least one of these accounts. It may be that Irvine22 is the sockmaster of both, one, or neither and that one of the two suspected socks is the sockmaster of the other. In any case, given the user names, WP:DUCK applies. It is impossible to envisage a situation whereby none of the accounts are related to one another. In addition, given that both suspected socks were created within one minute of each other on 20 June 2010, it is difficult to think that one account has been created with the intention of smearing the other. In fact, given Irvine22's long history of disruption, the creation of an obvious flag that an editor was a sock of his such as this, would be entirely in keeping with his previous behaviour. ISTB351 (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

I never doubted Ivor Stoughton's true Wiki-identity. It's good to see 'yet another' one of Irvine22's socks get thrown out. GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

Based on what I could dig out of the logs (and the username), Ivor Stoughton (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is a   Likely match to previous Irvine22 socks. Enemesis appears   Unrelated. The other Ivor account is   Stale. TNXMan 16:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

25 June 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Two edits to date, both related to Dave Snowden who isn't exactly a high profile person. Username bears a passing resemblance to previous sock Ivor Stoughton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and the Stonorov appears to be a Russian version of the "Stauner" name used by many previous socks also. 2 lines of K303 07:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

"Two edits to date, both related to Dave Snowden who isn't exactly a high profile person". Oh, come now. Dave Snowden is a highly notable and distinguished individual in his field. He must be, he has his own Wikipedia article. He's also a very handsome man, don't you think? Ivanka Stonorov (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

User name & behaviour - sock is User:Snowded obsessed RashersTierney (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Irvine22/Archive&oldid=1136068257"