Cannabis Sativa

thcscience_admin


I B Wright

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

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

10 October 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


I encountered this group of users on the Blu-ray Talk page, claiming a consensus between them and demanding I leave the discussion. I suspect they are operated by the same person.

These three users have a large number of mutual edits, and their shared interests include: British railways (particularly the London underground), display technology, batteries, electrical transformers, light bulbs, European landmarks and British ships.

There have been multiple occasions where they have worked together to make four consecutive reverts, such as here: 1 2 3 4, here: 1 2 3 4, and here: 1 2 3 4.

I B Wright recently claimed to be Canadian (diff), but has claimed to be from the UK previously (diff). All three users' editing histories suggest they are UK based.

On the aforementioned Blu-ray Talk page, all have shown an unexplained and increasing hostility towards me, and all have followed the unusual pattern of writing 1-2 extremely long-winded replies, then abandoning the discussion completely, but pursuing me elsewhere on the site (eg. 1 2 3).

DieSwartzPunkt and LiveRail have both made separate complaints accusing me of being a sockpuppet of the same completely unconnected user (diff, diff). Amazingly, they claim to have come to this conclusion independently (diff) on consecutive days.

I also noticed that despite their apparently argumentative natures and their deeply intertwined editing histories, they appear never to have had a disagreement.

(Side-note: There is also an IP-editor displaying the same behaviour, but as they openly change IP address every few hours, I didn't think it worth adding them here. But I could if anyone thinks it would be helpful.) Uk55 (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

It should, of course, be pointed out that this report is entirely in retaliation for this. --LiveRail 16:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uk55 made enquiries about how to determine sockpuppetry before that investigation was launched, so that's not necessarily the case. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cordless Larry: LiveRail actually included that link in their report, so based on that I would say the reverse is true. Uk55 (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LiveRail included the link because he discovered it while he was compiling the evidence for the SPI report and it was an important part of the evidence. It was found while following your edit history. --LiveRail 17:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to know where one starts with this? This is a problem with a user who is wanting to get his own way and is not able to do so. Uk55 was using a white paper on Blu-ray to support his claim that a table was folowing some standard that he perceived was right. He had in fact synthesised the claim that by presenting information in a particular way, that that somehow the paper established the standard (which the paper had never claimed). Further he was trying to format the table with an 'either or' column header and two different measurement systems forcing the reader to refer to a footnote to determine which was which - hardly encyclopeadic. Evidence has been posted on another SPI that this user is a sockpuppet of another user who displayed exactly the same characteristics. Both users are also showing the same characteristic of exagerating their claims or selectively editing.

I came somewhat late into the discussion at the end. Nowhere at Talk:Blu-ray did anyone demand that Uk55 leave the discussion (one exegeration). I merely suggested that he should WP:DROPTHESTICK and as you can see, I did use the word 'suggest'.

DSP, IBW and myself are engineers. The normal editing histories puts us in different areas of a fairly similar field of interest which appears to be electrical engineering. Inevitably there are areas of mutual interest and hence an overlap of editing interest (plus the editing history allows one to see what others are editing). We do encounter each other from time to time but I would say no more than we encounter other editors who edit in the same area. I was going to try and provide some editor interaction data, but the editor interaction utility is not working again. I am willing to bet that the overlap is fairly typical for two editors with overlapping interests. How many times have allegations of sock puppetry been made where two or more editors must be sockpuppets because they agree with each other when in reality all they are doing is disgreeing with the editor determined to force his desired edit.

Putting the same point across is not surprising when the point is valid. The above examples (if that is all there are) were eventually accepted by consensus.

Could't previously comment on I B Wright, but Uk55 has produced evidence that he has claimed that he is British (astonishingly: while Bhtpbank was active - well no surprise really).

Uk55 claims increasing hostility at Talk:Blu-ray. Re-reading the posts there, I see no hostiltiy, just matter of fact statements. The only person getting a bit heated is Uk55, but I would not say he was getting overly hostile either - at least at that discussion (two exagerations). People abandoned the discussion? I abandoned it because I had made the connection to Bhtpbank and knew that any further discussion was futile and started researching evidence for an SPI report which I published a few hours later.

DSP and myself have come to the same conclusion of Uk55's remarkable similarity to Bhtpbank. I wonder why?

I see no evidence supporting Uk55's claim of 'argumentative nature' so I guess we can dismiss that (so: three exagerations) It has to be said that I do come across editors who just will not accept that they are wrong. (Famous example whom everyone should know: Wtshymanski who would deliberately be wrong just to support an edit war - no longer with us fortunately).

I'm sure if I dig deeply enough I will find where DSP and myself have disagreed - and I know that we have (damned Editor interaction utility not working though does not help here).

However, I have to thank Uk55. While going through the history behind this, I found another classic Bhtpbank characteristic. --LiveRail 17:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • I've declined the CU request because there's insufficient evidence to justy a check. In fact, at this point the entire case should probably be declined and closed. I'll leave it open for a while longer to see if anyone has something more to say than we have a content dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My initial take was that there was a lot of bad blood between the filer and the three accused accounts. Thus, I suspected the motives of the filer. However, the filer asked me about my decline on my Talk page, and my response caused me to analyze the evidence the filer presented more closely, even though my reply to Uk55 still wasn't favorable. Based on my analysis, I ran the CU.
  • The three accounts are  Technically indistinguishable. This deceit has been going on for years. The master account was created in 2006, the DieSwartzPunkt account in 2011, and the LiveRail account in 2013. Based on that, as well as the total number of edits by the master account (which is actually not that many) and in the aggregate, I am indefinitely blocking the master as well as the puppets. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

06 December 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Kuru recently named this sockmaster in an ANI thread which gained blocks for 86.157.210.153 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 85.255.234.176 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Elektrik Fanne/Archive, where there is a similar pattern of ISPs and geolocations. One of the already-reported IP addresses, 86.149.141.166 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), took part in a similar April discussion making a coincidence now even less believable.

Looking at the behaviour of this master, I see further similarities with Elektrik Fanne:

  • Electrical-themed usernames, with very similarly styled signatures (--Elektrik Fanne and --LiveRail);
  • The time cards show a similar pattern, with the vast majority of edits between 12:00 and 20:00 ([1] [2][3][4]);
  • Comments using similar (and sometimes unique) style and language ([5][6], [7][8]).

The user is obviously capable of good edits, but has a habit of intimidating others using gangs of socks (see both sets of archives) and bogus allegations against those who expose his misconduct ([9][10]). I was recently targeted, and was alarmed to see how much traction the complaint gained amongst experienced users, having come from an apparently block-log-free user who says he was "an IP address based editor of many many years". I believe this account is abusing a WP:CLEANSTART.

I have never, as claimed in that ANI case, sought an indefinite block of Elektrik Fanne; the toughest sanction even mentioned by the clerks was a 48h block. If on the other hand, they are already indef-blocked, their comment makes more sense. In that case, the user is supposed to request their original account be unblocked, rather than continuing with block evasion.

KirksKeyKard also suspects. This report may save them some typing. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Here is diff [11] from 2013 by User:LiveRail which mentions mercury-arc rectifiers on the talk page of Railway electrification system.

Here is a very similar diff [12] from yesterday by User:Elektrik Fanne which also mentions mercury-arc rectifiers on the same talk page.

The talk page of this article is very long, but these are the only two instances where the term "mercury arc rectifier" has been used. Also, the time period of when this type of equipment was used is similar in both diffs; one stating 15 years, and the other 12 years. This is too much of a coincidence. KirksKeyKard (talk) 10:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Burninthruthesky has been continually harassing me by raising one SPI after another following exposure of trolling by him at Plasticine prior to my registering an account. The previous one being raised less than 12 hours after the second failed attempt. It should also be noted that he was so desperate as to attempt to appeal directly to an admin (notably ignored). He is clearly not giving up, as now he raises one under a different sock master. There is little doubt that this latest attempt was inspired by this post to my talk page (responded to below). This harassment resulted in this ANI complaint which unfortunately was closed with no action.
As far as Burninthruthesky's 'evidence is concerned, it shows the same desperate attempts to suck in any old nonsense.
'Similarly themed signatures': Not the same, but it was sourced with alterations from another account as I had no idea how to achieve the effect (though 'twas not Live Rail).
'Overlap of subjects': I live in England, am an electrical engineer, watch television and enjoy cricket (among other things). This might be shot in the dark but from IBW/DSP/LR's editing he too lives in England (or at least Britain) and certainly is familiar with electrical engineering. Doubtless, he watches television and may well one of the millions of Englishmen who follows that quintessentially English sport of cricket.
'vast majority of edits between 12:00 and 20:00': two people living in the same country having the same waking hours. He obviously thinks this is an absurd concept.
'similar (and sometimes unique)' style: Here I must put my hands up to plagiarism. I had seen the phrase "charlatons inevitably spring up to fill the void" in a previous discussion of the subject (the one linked to) and liked it so much, I pinched it and have used it frequently (give or take a word or two). Besides this is a much discussed subject within engineering circles. ... and I have just noticed that unlike IBW, I know how to spell 'charlatan' correctly.
As far as the case raised by KirksKeyKard is concerned: although I suspect that most admins are not familiar with electrical engineering science, it is impossible to discuss any large power DC system without mentioning the mercury arc rectifier because for most of the 20th century, it was the only feasible method possible of producing DC power on a large scale from AC power sources, (for DC railways as well as heavy industry) as indeed the linked article makes perfectly clear. It is therefore not surprising that it gets mentioned by two editors discussing their replacement by subsequently available technology. The time frame was purely my recollection from the massive replacement programme that took place in Southern England causing the railways to be closed for many successive weekends. Searching the internet only turns up a statement that the upgrade was 'the turn of the century', so 16 years give or take a few years. Is it therefore surprising that given that one time frame was a guess, that two editors give different time periods that nearly match the actual time period?
Although I cannot find any evidence to support this part of my response, I suspect that, given the non evidence provided by KirksKeyKard and the extremely quick complaint from Burninthruthesky, that there is an element of Meatpuppetry going on here. --Elektrik Fanne 18:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there is no evidence that "there is an element of Meatpuppetry going on here", because it is untrue; just as the other allegations of misconduct on my part.
No doubt there are millions of Brits who watch TV, enjoy cricket, and connect to the Internet with BT. They don't all watch the same programme, use the same ground, or the same IP address.
Once again I must clarify that my second Elektrik Fanne report did not fail. Following that close, I naturally reported it when the same user returned. Since then, new evidence has emerged to further confirm my suspicions of sockpuppetry.
One of the diffs posted above shows me simply requesting a sleeper check following obvious activity by this sockmaster. An unrelated user would have nothing to fear from such a check. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh there is clear evidence of mis-conduct on your part. A user posts an allegation of sock puppetry on my user page (albeit without any evidence whatsoever). Then the very first edit that you make on your next editing stint is this SPI case referencing the very post made on my talk page. That means that you are watching my talk page. That is clear WP:HOUNDING. The hounding page says, "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, ... to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.". That is exactly what you are doing. --Elektrik Fanne 14:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the header of this report to request a check user. Let's put this to firmly to bed. --Elektrik Fanne 14:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another similarity is that User:LiveRail also admitted to being an engineer(see this diff [13], and more specifically an electrical engineer. KirksKeyKard (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see no convincing behavioural evidence to link these two account. As to "admitted to being an engineer" and "more specifically an electrical engineer. ", I'm reminded of the apocryphal US politician who campaigned against a rival as being "a known homo sapiens" - only that speech has a bit more truth to it! Post Thatcher, UK industry is rather run down - but we do still have more than one electrical engineer in the country, and some of them have been known to watch cricket, our national sport.
I would like to know why Elektrik Fanne has been linked to an account which has been blocked for over a year. A one-line closure is not enough, and certainly not enough when it comes at the conclusion of months of harassment by the filer. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

 Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

27 April 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

I B Wright's editing appears to have continued after the latest block, mainly using (now stale) IPs, all with geolocation and provider matching previously reported IPs. First there was a WP:DUCK edit [14] [15]. From there, there is a line of almost-continuing activity as the IP address changes, via 86.174.153.41, 86.145.212.143, 86.186.169.144, 86.145.209.181 and 86.153.129.112.

Edits show the usual interest in electrical systems, some edits are positive. However, nearly all of these IPs have reverted edits by Wtshymanski (see the ANI thread I linked in my December report), so has the named account (which was created on January 1st). I also see some distinctive use of languague, e.g. "Your standard of English is such that you should not be editing the English Wikipedia.", "Your poor standard of English strongly suggests that you should not be editing the English Wikipedia."

The previous pattern of appearing to outnumber opponents has been happening recently at Talk:Harvesting lightning energy#Trivia sections. A sleeper check may be warranted. Burninthruthesky (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2017 (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]

 Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

23 May 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

From the checkuser-blocked IP in the previous report (86.153.129.112), there is continuity of timeline/topics to 86.186.169.237, including a WP:DUCK [16] [17]. After a pause, 86.145.209.23 commented on ANI (common for this master), this time in a thread I raised. It continued making edits on technical articles then switched to 86.174.152.128. IPs hopped after I made reverts. Edits continued from Vodafone, including an ANI complaint. Compare this January report, also from Vodafone, in which Ivanvector recognised this sockmaster.

Just to clarify the technical claims in the recent ANI report, I have seen unrelated BT IPs geolocate to many south-England locations. IBW socks have made a number of edits to Guildford. [18] [19] It is a published fact that the nearest Vodafone Point of presence is in London. Burninthruthesky (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Burninthruthesky is guilty of falsifying the "evidence" in this case.

In the so called "evidence" above, Burnin claims, "After a pause, 86.145.209.23 commented on ANI (common for this master)" (my emphasis) . 86.145.209.23's edit history clearly shows that no comment was made to ANI (or indeed connected with any ANI). In reality, none of the IP addresses listed above made any comment to any ANI involving Burnin (or any ANI). This therefore constitutes deliberately falsified evidence.

Burnin has this obsession with Guildford. I assume that he still believes that geolocate gives the location from which an edit is made even after the IP address has moved on. As a check, I checked on the five IP addresses above yesterday. Three were unallocated and geolocate to Guildford. 86.153.129.112 was allocated and locates to Southampton, England. 86.145.209.23 was allocated and geolocates to Sevenoaks, England. Checking today 86.153.129.112 is still allocated to Southampton, but 86.153.129.112 is no longer allocated and now geolocates back to Guildford (i.e. where the IP server is located). This iist at the least misrepresented evidence, but given the deliberate falsification above, I am not going to be that charitable. This is falsified evidence.

I might also suggest that as Burnin is clearly attempting to locate I B Wright to Guildford, he is guilty of WP:OUTING.

Then we turn to the side show of bullshit over Vodafone (for that is what it is). There are no Vodafone IP addresses above, I suspect that this is some ruse to (eventually) suck me in since I raised an ANI complaint over unproven sock allegations. Burnin goes on about Vodafone's 'point of presence' in London providing a link to a web page that allegedly confirms such a presence. Unfortunately it proves no such thing (the symbol for point of presence not appearing on the map anywhere). The other issue is where Burnin gets London from in the first place. All the Vodafone IP addresses that I have used, like all Vodafone addresses geolocate only down to 'United Kingdom'. The 'City' field shows 'N/A' (is in 'not available'). I assume the map defaults to showing the location as the geographical centre of the capital of the country in the 'Country' field in these circumstances. Thus this too is falsified evidence (though it is not clear of what at this stage).

185.69.144.154 (talk) 13:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive938#Hounding.2C_harassment_and_continued_trolling. 2602:306:3380:ADD0:8052:AB86:E8FD:BC71 (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • IP edits are too old. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19 July 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Since the IP filed in my last report (86.174.152.128), edits have continued from BT/Surrey and Vodafone, with the same article interest and behavioural traits. Enforcement has continued using reverts and RFPPs. Complaints that there is "no evidence" have continued in edit summaries and another ANI filing [20] (which was summarily deleted per DENY, and the filing IP blocked). The latest claim is made at an article that has been edited by IBW and socks for years ([21][22]).

As far as I'm aware, all except the last IP above are stale. I expect the current IP to hop as well.

Also for the record: although I don't see a mention in the 2015 archive, plainly dishonest Vodafone edits were associated with this case, even back then. [23] Burninthruthesky (talk) 06:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As predicted, now hopped, and making more wild allegations. Added above. Burninthruthesky (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Later on 19 July:

A spree of revenge reverts with abusive edit summaries. I have seen similar false accusations since soon after we met [24][25][26] . Burninthruthesky (talk) 05:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As ever, little of what Burninthruthesky writes is true. Note his use of the phrase 'false accusations' to give the false idea that the allegations were deliberately malicious. Also provides links but neglect to add that the second link links to an allegation that is demonstrably true.
The orginal sock allegation against Burninthruthesky was made in perfectly good faith (and accepted as such). The circumstances were:
  1. Both Burninthruthesky and Hengistmate were trolling in that they were both attempting to hammer an incorrect spelling of the word 'fuze' into the article at Plasticine.
  2. Both Burninthruthesky and Hengistmate were misquoting and misrepresenting the supplied sources to support their trolling.
  3. Hengistmate had a long established history of socking.
  4. Burninthruthesky was very active in defending Hengistmate for socking before his account was connected.
As far as I was concerned the evidence was compelling. So much so that I am still convinced that they are connected (and there are no rules against holding a belief).
But for maliciously false allegations, Burninthruthesky himself holds the gold medal where he maliciously accused Andy Dingley (pursuing the same vendetta for the same reason as he is pursuing this one). I cannot provide a link because that allegation was revdelled and Burninthruthesky was formally warned for it.
It's also worth noting that Burninthruthesky has been actively attempting to alter the case archives to remove evidence of his wrong doings ([27] and [28]) 81.156.46.110 (talk) 12:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only purpose of this page is to establish the connection to I B Wright. Nobody cares any more about this stuff from years ago, except for I B Wright. Burninthruthesky (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At least the sock is self-confirming four issues: (1) Sock is [[User:I B Wright] (2) Sock is block evading. (3) Sock is IP hopping. (4) Sock is going to continue, and shows no evidence of behavioral change to suggest they are suitable editors. Morphenniel (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Other possible socks include the following:

The sock has all the same traits as per previous investigations, a relentless edit war with User:Wtshymanski, which has now become a clear case of WP:STALK. Morphenniel (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of these has edit warred with Wtshymanski ever. Also, they must have access to some astonishing mode of travel to make New York to Sweden in under two hours and then make landfall in Malaysia in less than another two hours. You made this all up. 86.143.86.68 (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The sock demonstrates good knowledge of IP addresses, which is necessary to be able understand how to evade a block. Morphenniel (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But you demonstrate zero knowledge of Wtshmanski's history. Wtshmanski routinely edit wars with any IP address that dares to edit on any article 'owned' by Wtshymanski. In particular, if he cannot revert an edit for any genuine reason, he will revert a good faith edit and disguise it as a reversion for vandalism. Wtshymanski had an edit restriction imposed a couple of years ago for routinely reverting any edit from an IP address editor (you can search the archives for yourself). Somehow, the restriction was lifted, and Wtshymanski is back at it again (I have counted six reverts of good faith edits since the restriction was listed, all with his familiar edit tag of "rv v" - revert vandalism). Wtshymanski does not believe that IP address editors should edit Wikipedia and has said so many times. Wtshymanski enforces his view of what Wikipedia policy should be regardless. In your search, you will come across numerous complaints from numerous editors, plus an RfC which Wtshymanski neatly ducked using a now familiar technique. 86.143.86.68 (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Until today, you had only made one previous edit (in 2009!), but you have knowledge of a user that I picked at random. Clearly, you are the IP hopper we have been searching for. Morphenniel (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 86.143.86.68 is clearly I B Wright, and it is a BT address (see the WHOIS link). I'm not seeing any evidence the remaining IPs in Morphenniel's list are connected. (Chances are, the 2009 edit was someone else, as IBW wasn't given ‎86.143.86.68 until 19 July). Burninthruthesky (talk) 11:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I want to hear more about these six reverts of good-faith edits. Even if Jake and Nadine are differently preferenced, I hardly see how that is relevant to the article Search coil [29]. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
: Checked 284 edits tagged "rv v" or "rv anon v" since January, I don't see 6 that are reverts of good faith edits. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Baseless accusations often say more about the accuser than the accused. There's certainly evidence above that he has been reverting good-faith edits recently. I can't help noticing the irony that he turned up to deny that any of the non-uk IPs in the list were him. Speaks for itself, really. Burninthruthesky (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And at the same time you seem equally desperate to pursue your almost continuous vendetta. Even to the extent that on one sock allegation that you made, you had to resort to completely making up the 'evidence' that you provided (which was, presumably, why no links were provided). A commentary as to why it was made up nicely provided in a follow up by another IP user. Incidentally, I have no idea who this Vodafone user is, but I would like to know what his interest is.
As for reverting good faith edits: the only such edits I have reverted are yours, purely as retaliation for the almost continuous vendetta that you are waging against me. In case you hadn't noticed, no one else seems to care. You continue to cause me agro, I'll cause you agro. Leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone. Simples. 81.156.46.110 (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You were blocked before we met. I'm sure you know how to request an unblock. Burninthruthesky (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sock shows no regret about past behavior, and is determined to remain disruptive. Unblock likelihood = zero percent. Morphenniel (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • No recent edits so closing this as is. If any of the IPs begin editing again another SPI can be filed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

30 August 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

BT/Surrey IP with interest in railways and electrical systems, offering sage policy advice and resuming [30][31] previously reported behavioural pattern since the day the report was closed. Burninthruthesky (talk) 06:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now the revenge reverts have started. See the histories of the articles I've recently edited. Burninthruthesky (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These IP addresses revert Burninthruthesky's recent edits wantonly with identical edit summaries self-identifying as sock-evading trolling. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Unfortunately it's familiar behaviour. @Sondra.kinsey, Sro23, GraemeLeggett, and Bakilas: Thanks again for your support. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Acroterion: Thanks for joining the team helping out, and for blocking one of these IPs for harassment. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sro23: I was pleased to see you've been promoted to SPI clerk, congratulations! I think you made a mistake with this one. The m:Privacy policy allows the checkuser tool to be used to prevent harassment. I filed this case because another user was being harassed; now I am too. This particular sockmaster has already voluntarily disclosed where he lives anyway, as well as accidentally self-disclosing their IP in the past. This account may well have been created by this master, but of course I can't prove it, since there are no edits. I've had suspicions about other accounts too, but I'm not prepared to say which, or why, in case I'm mistaken. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In fact there are a number of checkuser-blocked accounts and IPs already in the archive. The protection of the project must be given a higher priority than the protection of those who knowingly breach its policies. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

This case is being reviewed by Sro23 as part of the clerk training process. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on their Talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

  •  Clerk declined - Sorry. No sleeper check without at least one sock account. Sro23 (talk) 21:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: sorry, Sro23, I'm stepping in here because this shouldn't be left open. @Burninthruthesky: Sro23 is correct that the privacy policy forbids CheckUser in this situation. This report is too old to action as it seems none of these IPs have edited since the report was opened. If this starts up again, please email me and do not file a case. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

31 December 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Reverting I B's contributions ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 20:43, 31 December 2018 (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]

11 February 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Block evasion. Probably related to I B Wright. Please also refer to @Bbb23:, THE "I B Wright"-expert.

  • Same or comparable subjects.
  • Often supports or gets support by other IPs (always from either Vodafone UK or British Telecom) or very-low-#-of-edits-users.
  • Uses the same choice of words or arguments.
  • Often uses other users or IPs attacking or reverting himself under false flag (not yet in this case).
  • In his choice of words, he often also impersonates a sysop.

See also his recent (today, 12:14-12:25) vandalism of all my previous recent edits. For example his derogatory summery for Davos: "No evidence that I am blocked. Either produce the evidence or fuck off and stop edit warring. This article is written in English and not you strange version of it." ZH8000 (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2019 (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]

We don't publicly disclose the IP(s) of named accounts. CU request declined.  Clerk assistance requested: Please move this report to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/I B Wright.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Done. @Bbb23: We could potentially block 85.255.234.0/23 or 85.255.235.0/24, depending on collateral. Thanks, GABgab 20:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GeneralizationsAreBad: I'm not sure you need me to make this determination. You can look at the edits in both ranges yourself and decide what collateral damage there would be if you blocked. If a hard block were at issue, then a CheckUser can see things an administrator cannot, but I assume you're not even thinking about a hard block, are you? --Bbb23 (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The edits of the IPs listed are old. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17 February 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Block evasion. See previous investigation. ZH8000 (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Besides: using same derogating wording again (last revert on Croque monsieur): "Even the illustration shows a toasted ham and cheese sandwich in that there are two pieces of bread, ham and cheese. If you have difficulty comprehending English then please don't edit here." -- ZH8000 (talk) 14:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was in response to this. The edit summary, "A Cm [Croque Monsier] is a toasted ham and cheese sandwich, but a toasted ham and cheese sandwich is not a CM". What is anyone supposed to make out of that? The article states that a Croque monsieur is a ham and cheese sandwich and the illustration at the head of the article shows what is undeniably a toasted ham and cheese sandwich, so exactly where ZH8000 is coming from here is anyone's guess. Either this is a comprehension issue or he is edit warring for the sake of it seem to be the only explanations. Clearly he does have English problems as he has resorted to using words that do not exist in the language ("derogating").
But even so this is yet another allegation without any evidence. ZH8000 has resorted once again to accusing anyone who opposes him of sock puppetry without providing any evidence. More examples (and only recent ones).
diff1 (Claims multiple blocked users - although it actually turned out to be a blocked user, no evidence offered by ZH8000 before this became known)
diff2 (Claims multiple blocked users)
diff3 (Claims multiple blocked users)
  • In the above two edits, the edits were made by 95.208.214.122 a German user for whom there is no block log or evidence of a ban from anywhere.
diff4
diff5 Attempted to back his edit warring up with a source, which had been deliberately misrepresented to support his false claim (as revealed here)
This serial sock allegation to suppress opponents is far from new. You will be relieved to know that I am not going to list the previous, but the last spate resulted in multiple warnings from Swarm which have been totally ignored.
And finally we have this nugget. An unashamed ANEW report where ZH8000 was attempting to get a user blocked against whom he was edit warring (successfully as that user was at 4RR) even though ZH8000 himself somehow believed the rules did not apply to him as he was also at 4RR (and got hit by the WP:BOOMERANG). 86.146.209.211 (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2019 (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]

  • IP's edits too old. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22 April 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Block evasion in [32] and [33]. See also previous investigations 11 Feb 19 and 17 Feb 2019. ZH8000 (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated reversions by 86.164.61.64; added to the list. -- ZH8000 (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2019 (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]

  • Pink clock Awaiting administrative action - Check rangeblock feasibility and decide accordingly. qedk (t 桜 c) 18:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 86.164 was used for one day and not since, probably not worth blocking at this stage. 81.129 has not been used for a week. If there are other IPs we can look at a range block, but based on these two I would decline to block at this time. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Martin. qedk (t 桜 c) 21:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21 May 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

  • Block evasion.
  • See also previous investigations 11 Feb 19, 17 Feb 2019, 22 April 2019.
  • From ISP British Telecommunications PLC
  • Using the same arguments such as "Regardless of your talk page or anything else, the English Wikipedia is written in English. Substituting anything else is just purely disruptive." without accepting factual evidences.
  • 3RR just recently on [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39] ZH8000 (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not guilty. I was about to take this to WP:AIV and had threatened to do so, but I see this retaliatory move has been made. This is clearly a retaliatory move because user:ZH8000 is continually attempting to point a redirect page to the wrong place, and introduce German place names in lieu of the English ones in the :en Wikipedia. Plus there is a clear attempt at misdirection because he has linked in an IP address that is totally unrelated. (Struck as this was in the original report not the revised one.) Also: no evidence presented about these 'same arguments' wherever they have come from. So: not wishing to appear to Forum shop, I present my case here. I would suggest that if someone else or others have made these points then there is some merit. But anyway, the problems are:
English readers looking for 'Zurich airport' may enter 'Zurich flughafen' (intending to mean 'Zurich Airport'), but ZH8000 continually attempts to redirect it 'Zurich Flughafen Railway station' {diff], which is not what they are looking for. Also he keeps attempting to translate names of places in Switzerland into German AND point them to the wrong place (diff) but many more examples. He accuses me of WP:3RR violation (which I have not - 3 times is the most I have reverted and those are to revert the continued disruption). Plus, the edit summaries to all six links that he has provided are all making these points. I have informed him of WP:BRD, a link he omitted of course, but he has not obtained a consensus for his repeated disruption - in fact someone else agrees with me (diff)]. 109.153.20.90 (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through his edit history, ZH8000 seems to accuse many who disagrees with him of block evasion without providing any evidence or even identifying who the blocked user is. Examples (but not limited to) diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4 and diff5. After five I couldn't be bothered to look any further but I have little doubt there are plenty more. 109.153.20.90 (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No comment necessary; it speaks for itself. -- 14:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

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]

  • The checkuser request is declined because checkusers will not relate IPs to accounts.  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note Swcrm, in my opinion, is a different LTA. Both IPs likely are I B Wright: one is currently checkuser-blocked and the other is stale. Closing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

01 July 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Another BT IP from Guildford. The behaviour is pushing all the classic I B Wright buttons, and whose buttons they're pushing.

Although in the Amstrad CPC article, they're at least edit-warring the right content. Guess who they're edit-warring with? Go on, no-one is going to be in the least bit surprised. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2019 (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]

CU declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

26 August 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Newly created user just in order to supposedly politely intervene, but with posibly destructive intentions. Uses always the same style of writing and the same kind of obstrution. Compare with most of his previous posts. ZH8000 (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2019 (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]

  •  Clerk declined, this case is stale except for IPs which cannot be compared. @ZH8000: why do you think this is I B Wright? Can you compare the new account's actions to specific edits (with diffs) of older confirmed socks? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ivanvector: Probably from a BT IP, isn't it? - Well, I am not 100% sure, of course not. But the indeed correct statement "From what I have seen here, you don't get to reinstate your change because there is no consensus. It is your change that requires the consensus as a change from the established version which has de facto consensus by having stood for several years. Furhter, I would suggest that the consensus here is more against you than with you." in [40] it is the tone and the chosen words which make me thinking. Further the user's name, Hans Heidel, an obviously invented German name; a group he possibly seems to dislike ;-) Or the comment "I believe the policy is that the " to his revert of [41]. But wait, until he comes back after reading my feedback on Talk:List of circulating currencies#Swiss franc and answering them. He will for sure not give in. -- ZH8000 (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06 November 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Block evasion and hunting by socketpuppeteer "I B Wright" by several IPs. This time instead of using newly created user, he just uses changing IPs in order to supposedly politely intervene, but with possibly destructive intentions. Uses always the same style of writing and the same kind of obstruction. Compare with most of his previous posts!

85.255.232.0/21 already currently blocked for 36 hours - "only".

Reporting this for the sake of protocol. ZH8000 (talk) 13:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: I B Wright's block evasion is going on:
He even tries to slander me:
I added the two IPs to the list above. -- ZH8000 (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2019 (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]

  • I've soft-blocked 85.255.232.0/21 for 72 hours. Asking for a CU to check for collateral and can adjust if problems. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04 December 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Simple reinstantiation of I B Wright sockpuppet – very much the same as in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/I B Wright/Archive#06 November 2019; all evidence is given here. ZH8000 (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2019 (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]

23 December 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Simple reinstantiation of I B Wright sockpuppet – very much the same as in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/I B Wright/Archive#06 November 2019 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/I B Wright/Archive#04 December 2019; all evidence is given there. ZH8000 (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2019 (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]

25 December 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Simple reinstantiation of I B Wright sockpuppet – very much the same as in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/I B Wright/Archive#06 November 2019, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/I B Wright/Archive#04 December 2019, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/I B Wright/Archive#23 December 2019; all evidence is given there. ZH8000 (talk) 17:28, 25 December 2019 (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]

  • All IPs are stale. @ZH8000: for this case, please report at ANI when the harassment is occurring, you'll get a faster response. There's not much we can do about it at SPI when we get to the report days later. You can refer to WP:LTA/IBWRIGHT in your report. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04 March 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Looks like yet another I B Wright / Bhtpbank dropping by. Quacking is deafening. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2020 (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]

  • Closing, not enough evidence of abusive behaviour. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

24 November 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

IPs are clearly all the same person (geolocate to Guildford), evidenced by their interchangeable participation at multiple talkpages (see here, here, and here for explicit acknowledgments these are all Guildford). For the other IPs, the overlapping interests and similar language usage in edit summaries and elsewhere also confirm that it's still Guildford.

There is considerable overlap with RFenergy, especially in topics related to engineering and electricity, and one frequently comes to the defense of the other in the case of edit wars (usually RFenergy backing up the IP). See the editing history here, where RFenergy takes over an edit war from Guildford, arguing on the exact same issue as Guildford (who never comments again). The same pattern occurs at Philishave, where RFenergy takes over an edit war from Guildford, who doesn't edit the page again, and in a back-and-forth between RFenergy and Guildford at Turbo Pascal; interestingly, on the Philishave talkpage, RFenergy takes over from Guildford in arguing with Jerodlycett, but also "converses" with the IP on the pretense they are different people (edit warring with User:Jerodlycett is another quality they have in common) in support of "their" argument.

Their two edits at Talk:ground loop (electricity) are particularly suspicious, especially when you note it's Guildford's only ever edit to the page: [42][43].

Guildford currently has an open ANI discussion where they have made some odd arguments about text being missing from Star Trek to justify edit warring at Star Trek: Voyager (note their phrasing of And from the edit history, I am definitely not the only one who thinks so. I count three people who disagree with you which they have used before: which according to my count, as of this post, no less than 3 (three) other people have attempted to make you aware); RFenergy has now appeared at the talkpage of Star Trek: Voyager--an article which they have never edited--to support Guildford's argument by echoing the same weird missing text claims from the ANI report as well as drop a familiar bit of phrasing: but the edit history suggests that this dispute has been going on for some while and involves more than one editor on both sides (unless I have miscounted, I make it three on each side.

Something is hinky here; even if this isn't direct sockpuppetry, there is some sort of odd tag-teaming coordination going on between this registered account and Guildford. There have been suspicions about RFenergy before, and despite the determination that a CU wasn't warranted, the account was still acknowledged as suspicious. Grandpallama (talk) 02:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Between the time I filed this report last night and now, NinjaRobotPirate has blocked RFenergy as a sock of I B Wright. I think the connections between the Guildford IPs listed and RFenergy stand, so it's worth looking at them in light of the expanded potential connections to other socks, too. Grandpallama (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2020 (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]

  •  Clerk note: Moved to correct master. IPs appear to be the same general area as the range noted on the LTA page. The most recent IP has been blocked by NinjaRobotPirate, rest haven't edited in months so no need to block them. Closing. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2 April 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

As with all past cases, I B Wright has reappeared in electrical engineering topics insisting on esoteric presentations of common units, edit warring over their preferred appearance, and personally attacking any editor who disagrees or tries to discuss with them. And, as usual, it's one of a very small list of editors they've harassed previously that they're trying to get in trouble at ANI. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:03, 2 April 2021 (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]

  • Checkuser confirms that the one user making the abusive posts at ANI today has used all of the IPs listed above, however these are dynamic IPs on very large ranges, so range-blocking is both impractical and would have high collateral damage. But also note that many of the unrelated users who appeared in my checks already have IP block exemption, very likely because of this sockmaster. I've blocked the newest of the IPs but absolutely expect them to be back. A few of these IPs have been recorded in this case already.
Note to clerks/checkusers: it's worthwhile to request/run checks in this case as the sockmaster also creates good-hand accounts that they use in between logging out to harass the same users they always do. They've also been very active (while logged out) filing sockpuppet investigations on talk pages and asking clerks to move them over, to the point that clerks should treat such requests with suspicion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14 November 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

The IP uses the same argument as User:RFenergy (aka User:I B Wright) who has been blocked indefinitely two years ago. ZH8000 (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2022 (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]

  • If this is I B Wright, they have moved to another country, and have considerably changed their editing interests - this IP has been stable for a couple of months, and mostly edits about classical music, the German language, and German places. While they have gone onto a talk page dispute that I B Wright socks have been involved in before, that isn't proof that it's the same person. (TBH, putting on my old survey hat on, I can see why people would question a length given to the nearest centimetre for a tunnel that is 15 km long.) Closing without action, but come back if any more evidence emerges. Girth Summit (blether) 18:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20 December 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Comparable behaviour. Same ISP. ZH8000 (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:212.219.0.0/16 would strongly suggest another IP overlap. Ongoing behaviour suggests I B Wright (yet again). Andy Dingley (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2023 (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]

  • The personal attacks over mundane electrical things are a pretty clear giveaway; the IPv6 is blocked for one year. I don't understand why Mspritch was added and I don't think that's them anyway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/I_B_Wright/Archive

Leave a Reply