Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lapsed Pacifist/Archive


Lapsed Pacifist

Lapsed Pacifist (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
07 April 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


  • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

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

Lapsed Pacifist is currently blocked for violation of arbitration Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lapsed Pacifist where they were topic banned from articles related to the conflict in Northern Ireland. They were also topic banned from articles relating to the Corrib gas controversy in WP:ARBLP2. Block was enforced on the 20th March for multiple violations of the first topic ban. On the 28th March User:Gestur became active, displaying similar traits and editing almost exclusively on the conflict in Northern Ireland.

  • Taking LPs early contribution history where they were primarily involved in editing on Northern Ireland and comparing them to Gesturs, recurring common articles edited by both accounts.
  • Editing sequence of both accounts are very similar, characterised by editing blocks of a number of hours duration sometimes at odd hours of day/night. Eg Gesturs first block of editing was 330AM onwards, LP also has blocks of editing at the same time
  • Editing style of both identical, mainly linking, copy editing and some wording/spelling changes. Info sometimes added but very little in way of sources/refs.
  • Both edit with a similar level of prolificacy.
  • Consecutive editing of an article here
  • Use of edit summaries (or mainly lack of) similar. Use of Minor edit tag and edit summaries ony recently adopted by LP at behest of admin. Gestur tags 2 edits out of first 3 as minor, one more then stops.
  • Similar remarks in edit summaries:
Gestur Don't see where it's stated and LP How are you so sure? It's certainly not apparent to me
Gestur NPOV and LP NPOV
Gestur This doesn't tally with the rest of the paragraph and LP Doesn't tally with text below
Gestur Not suitable for background and LP Not clear who's being quoted
Gestur Not sure about prevalence of nationalism in 1790s and LP Not so sure about that
  • Gesturs only other edit outside of Irish Republicanism is to Shell to Sea, an organisation who they are involved with and also topic banned from. This was a typical tactic of LPs, adding unsourced information, raised during arbitration.
  • LP changesAmerica(n) to US and so, does, Gestur GainLine ♠ ♥ 23:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Clerk endorsed - CU for clarification. This isn't Ryan kirkpatrick, is it? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed that

are all the same. Amalthea 07:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate accounts indef blocked, main account indef blocked as well due to very extensive block evasion and inappropriate use of multiple accounts on top of continued disregard of arbcom remedy. Amalthea 08:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

10 June 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


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

Gob Lofa's account was created on 13 April 2011, five days after the sockpuppetry case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lapsed Pacifist/Archive was closed with socks blocked. A look at Gob Lofa's block log suggests disruption in a similar vein as Lapsed Pacifist, who has been topic banned twice, from "articles which relate to the conflict in Northern Ireland" and "articles related to the Corrib gas project, broadly defined". Shell to Sea is related to the Corrib gas project, and according to the history has been edited by Gob Lofa 13 times, plus 3 edits to Corrib campaigner Willie Corduff, and 4 edits to campaigner Maura Harrington. I am sure someone with more knowledge of the articles involved in the controversy will be able to find more edits to related articles. There top edited pages are almost entirely related to the conflict in Northern Ireland. Edit summaries are similar including capitalisation, [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] are Lapsed Pacifist using "Reword" just a sample from their last 50 contributions. It is unusual for someone to make the effort to capitalise the first word (and in this case, only word) of an edit summary. I count 39 uses of the word in Gob Lofa's last 500 contributions. There is the occasional use of reword later in a sentence such as " Kingsmills already planned, reword", but the overwhelming majority are an edit summary beginning, and usually ending, "Reword". Similarly [6] [7] [8] "Qualify" for Lapsed Pacifist, and [9] [10] [11] for Gob Lofa. I am sure someone with more time will be able to find many more similarities.

Same two key editing areas Lapsed Pacifist has been banned from, account created right after previous sockpuppet blocked, similar edit summaries. I believe they are the same person. 2A02:C7D:3CBD:3100:3484:50F5:95D9:27B1 (talk) 11:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further information is at User talk:Murry1975#Lapsed Pacifist, I have just noticed. In particular the overlap. 2A02:C7D:3CBD:3100:3484:50F5:95D9:27B1 (talk) 12:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

I must congratulate the IP editor on a thorough job. I have looked carefully at the editing history of Lapsed Pacifist, Gob Lofa, and known sockpuppets of those two accounts, and the amount of connection is far more than enough to make the sockpuppetry perfectly clear. I shall change the existing limited block on Gob Lofa to an indefinite block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

18 June 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

  • DanceHallCrasher (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
  • Editor interaction utility

DanceHallCrasher started editing actively on 11 June, the day after JamesBWatson blocked Gob Lofa as a sockpuppet of Lapsed Pacifist. This edit, only DanceHall's second overall, displays a knowledge of Wikipedia formatting and mark up which the true newbie rarely gets right. So far they've made 22 edits to 12 articles. Eight of those twelve were also edited by GobLofa. Both accounts make identical edits to the Murder of Jean McConville, removing "wrongly" from the lead: DanceHall here and GobLofa here. Both editors insist that Provisional Irish Republican Army should only be abbreviated as "IRA" not "PIRA" " Gob Lofa here and DanceHall here. There are also similar or identical edit summaries. "As previous" by DanceHall and "As previous" by GobLofa (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If VPNs are involved, then it's down to behavioural evidence. Is it just coincedence that this account begins regular editing just a day after the latest LP sock is blocked, edits the same articles, with identical edits and edit summaries? To answer DanceHall, as to why Gob wouldn't have reverted. The question of whether Gob and LP were one and the same was already being raised [[|User_talk:Murry1975#Lapsed_Pacifist|back in April]], I've no doubt that LP would have kept a few spare socks handy and his Mejor Los Indios sock was editing at the same time as the parent account so that's nothing new. Valenciano (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DanceHallCrasher has nothing to do with me. I tried to post here before this but the IP I'd been using was blocked because I had previously logged on with it. 82.198.140.206 (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I must mention that Gob Lofa as far as I am aware edited via a VPN, the IP of which varies quite a few times between Germany, Poland and one or two other places. Whilst I will be glad to know they aren't back in the form of a new account, it can't be dismissed that they may have simply altered their VPN. Mabuska (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no connection to any other accounts. I previously edited as various IPs, including Special:Contributions/94.5.60.131 and decided to create an account to avoid problems in discussions since my dynamic IP changes most days. Since nine of the articles I have edited relate to Irish republicanism and Gob Lofa tended to edit articles related to Ireland, it is a meaningless use of statistics to say that eight of them were also edited by Gob Lofa.DanceHallCrasher (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that the disputed edit was made on 17 March 2016 by Special:Contributions/217.40.202.110 who had edited Airey Neave 6 minutes after I did. Why would Gob Lofa not have reverted it before he was blocked? A more convincing explanation is that two different people made the same edit, mine as a result of looking through the IP's contributions after he/she appeared on my watchlist blanking a section.DanceHallCrasher (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you ignore the fact I said I also edited as 94.5.60.131, edited quite extensively on 6 June 2016, ie before Gob Lofa was blocked on either 8 June or 10 June. That I edited using that IP can hardly be in dispute given the edits to Manohar Aich and Vis a vis (TV series) (both also edited as DHC) and Bobby Sands. The first edit to Bobby Sands also links back to Special:Contributions/90.197.141.158, another IP I used for 12 edits on 5 June 2016. Is there actually any evidence for your VPN claim? Both IPs that are obviously mine are Sky Broadband IPs, which was not a VPN last time I checked.DanceHallCrasher (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gob Lofa adds a "cn" template on the grounds a dead link to a newspaper is a "Bad ref" here, a change I amended here on the grounds sources are not required to be online. Yet I am supposed to be the same person, that does not compute.DanceHallCrasher (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the above sounds a lot like Gob Lofa's demeanour whether you mean to or not, and with their past use of sockpuppets needs looked at. It's not hard, and wouldn't be the first time, for an editor to feign editing differences between accounts to give the impression that they are distinct and unrelated.
At Bbb: simple tell-tale signs. Firstly LP was a sock-master, and having being indef ban, what better way than to avoid the linking of a new account with theirs if a check was done than by an IP mask of some sort, say a VPN or something similar to Tor (yes I know Tor IPs are blocked from editing, but as a signed up user are they?). Secondly Gob Lofa circumstantially inadvertantly gave away that they are using some form of IP masking when they provided online citations from Google Books and the like for various things. The links frequently ended in .pl or .de and the like, despite the fact all the sources were English. Many times the links wouldn't even display unless you altered the link to .co.uk or .com. Also considering the lack of edits to German and Polish articles, and their proud flying of the Irish provinicial flag of Munster, you can bet they aren't from central Europe. I wonder do LP and GL share much technical data? Yet I know they are one and the same and I have a library full of evidence for it should they appeal their indef block. Yet despite what they share, GL made sure that their demenaour was quite different in ways to LP as best they could.
ersonally without more proof I can't see what can be done here at present and DHC should be given the benefit of the doubt, unless they in future give reason otherwise. Mabuska (talk) 12:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At Valenciano. Murry1975 had actually raised the LP -GL link way last year directly at GL and we were both gathering evidence back in January where it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt they were one and the same. Mabuska (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • DanceHallCrasher and Gob Lofa (talk · contribs · count) are Red X Unrelated. There's limited technical evidence in support of DanceHallCrasher being a sock of the master and Gob Lofa not.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mabuska: How can you know whether Gob Lofa used a VPN?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: While Bbb23's technical conclusions would seem to indicate Gob Lofa might, not be a sock of LP, I don't see the need to re-evalute JamesBWatson's block of that account at this time when there has not been an unblock request. As for the allegations that DHC is a sock of LP, the technical evidence is, as Bbb23 said, limited; and the behavioural evidence (as well as the fact DHC has been rather forthcoming and transparent about his prior IP-editing), while not insignificant, is not sufficient for me to comfortably conclude that violations of sockpuppetry policy are taking place. DHC's editing should be evaluated for its own merits and if violations of other policies occur, they should be dealt with administratively independently of the SPI's lack of conclusive determination. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

04 July 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


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

There is reasonable suspicion that Apollo may be another iteration of this editor, there are too many similarities in interactions with Apollo as there was with Lapsed Pacifist's previous sock-account Gob Lofa. Whilst the exact editing demeanour between these editors is not the exact same would you expect it to be with a serial sockmaster wanting to evade detection?

Edit history comparisons
  • Edit history comparisons show that Apollo and Gob Lofa have a lot of shared editing history [12]
  • The same for Apollo and LP [13] though when all three are compared there are some articles where one of the accounts hasn't edited. They also have shared editing history with another blocked sockpuppet of LP, Gestur [14]
  • Whilst this can be excused as editors having the exact same affinity in editing lots and lots of articles to do with Irish republicanism, especially socialist republicanism there are a few oddities that increase the likelihood of sockpuppetry. For example once you take out all the articles that are to do with Ireland you are left with articles such as:
  • Apollo and Gob Lofa oddities: Enver Hoxha, Pediga, War in Donbass, Colonization of the Moon, Donetsk People's Republic, European_United_Left–Nordic_Green_Left, World War III, October Crisis, Red Army Faction, Mars One, Social science fiction, Exploration of Jupiter, 433 Eros, Democratic centralism, Roman Republic, European migrant crisis, Vladimir Putin, Communist terrorism
  • Apollo and LP oddities: Front_de_libération_du_Québec, Movement_for_Socialism_(Bolivia), Foco, Shining Path, The Left (Germany), October Crisis, ETA_(separatist_group), Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956, One-party state, Red Army Faction, Flat Earth, Islam in the Republic of Ireland
Aversion to terrorism in regards to Irish republicanism
  • A more convincing comparison is Apollo's and Gob Lofa's aversion of the term terrorism when involving acts against the British state.
Other examples of removing the word terrorism/terrorist: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24] & [25] and the subsequent discussion over it, [26], [27], [28]
  • Apollo terrorism removals: [29],[30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bayardo_Bar_attack&diff=prev&oldid=773151028, [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58] - and as far as I can tell that is all from just March this year, and some are repeated removals of the category from the same article having being reverted. Also see [59], [60], [61], [62]. Here Apollo states that the killing of soldiers does not meet the definition of murder. Other examples of Apollo removing terrorism: [63], [64], and then this mass removal of Irish terrorism from guess which article? That's right List of terrorist incidents in London that Gob Lofa was fond of arguing over.
Oddly we find Gob Lofa restoring the use of the term terrorist but as its an article about a loyalist attack and matches Apollo's sentiments on the issue they recently gave at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Apollo_The_Logician_and_The_Troubles where they stated that only loyalist incidents are terrorism. Gob Lofa and Apollo likewise never remove the term from loyalist articles.
Opposition to use of crime and murder in regards to attacks by republicans

Some of the preceding diffs also show examples of this but if the diffs are already checked to prove thoroughness then I shouldn't need to repeat them unless required?

Citing talk and false agreements
  • Gob Lofa and Apollo are both fond of citing false agreements as justification for their edits when none exist and then demand others get consensus or take it to talk:
  • Gob Lofa: ironic its the addition of a terror cat for a UK committed incident, though the talk cited doesn't really explain anything. [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74] - all these edits are from the one article to which there was no apparent agreement/consensus between the two arguing editors until after all these edits! [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], - I can find no such agreements or consensus on the talk pages to match Gob Lofa's claims.
  • Apollo: cites consensus for removal [81], responded to by @DavidCane: stating there is no consensus [82] and [83]. A look at the discussion shows no consensus. Same with [84], [85], [86], [87], [88] all of which have no such consensus or agreements on the talk page at time of edits. This discussion. This one doesn't actually seem to have an agreement either for Apollo's reinstatement of contentious content.
  • Similarly they like to use the "see talk" edit summary:
  • Gob Lofa: [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101] etc. etc. etc. there are so many to list.
  • Apollo: [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108]. Further back they also used the variant "see talk page" however seem to have dropped the page bit [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115].
  • Gestur and Lapsed Pacifist seem to have rarely used edit summaries so its hard to compare them both to this, though LP and Gob Lofa do share a fondness for stating "Reword", which Apollo does not - maybe too obvious a tell?
Other odd similarities
  • Apollo and Gob Lofa appear to also have an early tendancy to not use edit summaries resulting in requests for them to do so: Apollo being asked to use more and User_talk:Gob_Lofa/Archive_2#Please_Leave_Edit_Summaries_December_2013 the same for Gob Lofa.
  • Apollo never made a single edit summary in their first 596 edits, which seems kind of wierd, but arriving on the scene not long after Gob Lofa was blocked, would a sock want to raise suspicion? Ironically their second ever edit summary [116] simply states NPOV, something they have cited many times since, something that Gob Lofa was all too fond of citing as well. If you wish I can post the litany of examples but I think I have already done quite a bit.
  • Both editors have a very high reverted edits tally compared to total edits: Apollo - 327 out of 6,138 edits. Gob Lofa - 524 out of 18,570 edits. On the other hand comparing to other editors on Ireland related articles I [117] have 27,388 edits of which only 321 were reverted (many by Gob Lofa), Scolaire [118] has 146 reverted edits out of 22,054, Snowded [119] has 630 out of 32,177. Far smaller percentages when compared to GB and Apollo.
In summary

These may all just be coincidences and there are more similarities in behaviour but I have limited time to trawl through their myriad of edits many of which are quite trivial to find them. However the above is more than enough to prove a high degree of likelihood when compared to other SPI's on other editors. Apollo may still be innocent but I will leave it up to whoever takes on this SPI to decide.

I will also reiterate that Gob Lofa appeared to edit via a VPN or some other IP hopping method or from different locations, and Apollo's willingness to accept an IP check only reaffirms my suspicion. After all Gob Lofa was an obvious sock of Lapsed Pacifist despite the fact it was stated that the technical information didn't prove it beyond doubt and I don't think a CheckUser will be of viable use. Mabuska (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

  • @Bbb23: any comment on the connection? It is likely? EvergreenFir (talk) 07:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is likely that both editors have very strong views that are opposed to Mabuska's very strong views. This SPI should not have been opened while there was an ongoing block review at User talk:Apollo The Logician. There is evidence there that was deliberately omitted from this request. Scolaire (talk) 07:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Very strong views? You know that that is not the case and my views are nowhere as hardline as these 2 editors. I resent that insinuation. Anyways what evidence at the "ongoing block review" at Apollo's talk, page? All I see are ordinary editors viewpoints about following proper procedure, which I agree with. There was no review going on by the blocking admin. Also what evidence? You made a claim that you think someone else is more likely a Gob Lofa sock yet provided little evidence. There is strong reasonable suspicion and the only way to investigate it is via a SPI where evidence can be given. As I keep saying Apollo may be innocent but it is up to the admins to decide. Mabuska (talk) 10:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
        • I said that there is someone with whom Apollo has frequently had strong disagreements, who has far more intersecting edits with Gob Lofa than Apollo (258 to be precise), on a far greater range of topics than just Ireland and a couple of space articles, and who also began editing after Gob Lofa was blocked. I didn't name him because he is not involved in the present kerfuffle, but if you, Mabuska, had been honest, you would have said that in your SPI request. And I haven't said your views are "hardline", only that they are very strong, and very strongly anti-republican. You know that's true. Scolaire (talk) 12:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your comment was an attempt at ad hominem and should have no relevance. Also I would consider calling me dishonest without merit a personal attack and further ad hominem statement. I can just as easily say that as a strong republican editor you want to keep your comrade unblocked but that would be ad hominem. You claim there is another phantom editor out there but don't name them or provide any evidence of their existence or similarities. It is a hunch of yours that I know nothing about so how is it dishonest of me to not mention something I know nothing about and have to take your word on? I presented the evidence that I have, that is all I needed to do. If you're so cock-sure of your sock claim then do something about it and stop moaning. Mabuska (talk) 12:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unproven Having a coincidence of opinions is not the same as proving a coincidence of identities. For this topic, it is obviously polarised and a great many editors contributing will follow either one of two tribal groups, with a strongly held and largely consistent position within that group. Technical CU is inapplicable here and cannot help. Coincidence of "new editor didn't use edit summaries until warned to" counts more against them being the same person, than for it.
I would support blocking Apollo the Logician for their POV editing behaviour under their own account - I don't know if there's a majority to support that. But I cannot see evidence to support their socking here, and we should not block editors on such flimsy grounds. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See Gob Lofa's own block for flimsier grounds with no complaints. Mabuska (talk) 10:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One bad block does not excuse others! Do I really have to explain that? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Who said it was a bad block? The block was correct but unless you have compared Gob Lofas edits to LPs you can't really make such an assumption. The IP provided and suceeded with far less evidence and convincing than I had collated for a SPI. Make no mistake that block was not bad. Mabuska (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You did, describing it as "flimsier grounds".
If Gob Lofa was blocked for a solid reason, then state "Gob Lofa was blocked for X", "Apollo has done X" and block Apollo on that basis. But claiming this proof-by-precedent in that an earlier block was unchallenged despite being "flimsy" now allows future blocks on a similarly flimsy basis, just because there is now a precedent is not an acceptable reason. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Never said it was a precedent, simply proving that my evidence is not flimsy as you seem to think and obviously not seeing as BlackKite quoted this SPI in defence of his block of Apollo. Mabuska (talk) 12:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gob Lofa had 833 intersections with Lapsed Pacifist. The comparison that Murry1975 made at the time was between him and me; we had 394 intersections. You and I have 374 intersections, compared with 199 between Apollo and Gob Lofa. Besides that, there were distinctive traits in both edit summaries and talk page strategy that were common to LP and GL; you have not shown anything similar here. Your "evidence" against Apollo is indeed flimsy. Scolaire (talk) 12:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm missing something but looking at the outcome and BlackKite's comment at Apollo's talk page apparently strong enough. I have no more to say here on the matter other than if Apollo can prove their innocence then so be it and they should be unlocked, I won't challenge it, otherwise the block should remain. Mabuska (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further evidence. See this comment by Gob Lofa where he said "all three [ Michael Collins, Éamonn de Valera and Gerry Adams] were great cheerleaders for the murders of policemen and soldiers." Gob Lofa could switch his "republicanism" off and on like a light. Apollo The Logician is consistent in his republicanism. Scolaire (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have taken the liberty of de-archiving this and removing the close template. There are clearly many facts that Bbb23 was unaware of when he closed this. It needs a more detailed close. Scolaire (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Circumstantial at best I'm glad that ATL's SPI can now continue in earnest and he can defend himself against these claims. It is very well known that the majority of people in NI belong to one community or the other, and the two communities share very different viewpoints. The evidence presented here does not prove anything (how does 'see talk' edit summary even prove that two accounts are operated by the same person?!). I, for one, use 'see talk' as an abbreviation as do many other Wikipedia users - it is obvious that ATL picked up the habit when he joined Wikipedia.
My argument from the very start has been that ATL's command of English is very, very different to that of GL/LP. Compare Gob Lofa's talk page comment here with ATL's talk page comment here - you'll find that ATL's grammar, spelling and punctuation differs very much from GL's. Again, let's compare another talk page comment by GL with ATL's talk page comment.
I first encountered ATL when I was patrolling new pages and subsequently nominated a few of his articles for deletion. Indeed, if ATL were a sockpuppet, wouldn't he surely add his signature to talk page comments? DVdm left a talk page comment reminding him to add signatures and to indent. I know the argument here would be 'oh to deflect suspicion' - no. These are clear signs of an editor at the beginning of their editing career. We know ATL is an eager editor who we all have had disagreements; he has been blocked in the past for edit warring and his edits have been very controversial. The evidence here proves absolutely nothing and is coincidental at most. It is not uncommon for left-wing marxist republicans to share similar viewpoints, so we should not call them all sock puppets of Gob Lofa. We should instead look at sanctions such as a topic ban on Troubles-related articles which a lot of editors have consented to. st170e 17:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the defence. Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alfie Gandon (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Further evidence. Seeing as Apollo has named Alfie Gandon in his response below, I will present my evidence. Alfie has 258 user intersections with Gob Lofa, 142 intersections with Lapsed Pacifist, and 62 intersections with both, and the range of topics he shares with them is far greater than the handful of "odd" ones that Apollo does: 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine, 6th century BC, Abdullah Öcalan, Able Archer 83 and Agustín de Iturbide before you even get through the A's. Alfie started editing on 6 July 2016; Gob Lofa was blocked on 10 June 2016. Alfie and Apollo have edit-warred against one another e.g. here, here and here. This is bona fide, EWNB-level editwarring, not just some sockmaster having a laugh with two of his puppets. Alfie and Apollo cannot both be socks of Lapsed Pacifist / Gob Lofa, and since the evidence for Alfie being one is far stronger, the evidence for Apollo being one comes close to zero. Alfie has been inactive since May, so to add him to this SPI would be pointless. Scolaire (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alfie also mainly just did copy editing, linking and rewording things which Gob Lofa supposedly did a lot. Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Snowded, User:Bastun You two have interacted with both of the user in question. Can you see any similarities?Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A pretty good defence given below Apollo however editing habits change over time and can be largely altered to evade suspicion especially when dealing with a sockmaster like LP, for example there are quite a lot of articles and topics that LP and GL don't share and LP rarely used an edit summary compared to GL. Most of your edits and Gob Lofas are still around the same time of day and Gob Lofa also lived in Ireland, they even proudly have the Connacht flag on their talk page and I have no proof they ever used a VPN, just circumstantial suspicion. If you are innocent I hope your not an editor with a Connacht IP. Also Ulster covenant and modern loyalism whilst linked to each other chronologically are nowhere the same kind and that is a red herring argument. A good defence with some flaws but despite the claims of some of your defenders, my evidence isn't flimsy and still provides strong grounds for suspicion. But still good work and I wish you all the best in your appeal though I would still back a topic-ban on Troubles articles in the event you clear your name.
@Scolaire: please file a separate SPI rather then jumping on this one. You have your suspicion and evidence on a different editor and it doesn't belong in this specific SPI even if it may have bearing on this one. So please stop trying to derail this SPI. Mabuska (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stop being silly! You complained here because I hadn't presented my evidence, and you're complaing now because I have. This is a page for presenting new evidence; it's not a trial where you have to demolish other people's arguments. Stop trying to be prosecution and judge, and allow the closing admin to look at the evidence and form his or her own opinion. Scolaire (talk) 06:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Having said that, Gob Lofa was fond of decapping the first word in infobox names usually in regards to changing "The Troubles" to "the Troubles", something he argued with Snowded over quite a bit. Whilst I haven't had a real good look at Aldie's edits this and the subsequent edit summary doesn't match that habit. Your evidence isn't concrete Scolaire but I admit there are similarities just as is the case with my evidence. Mabuska (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm generally on the other side from Mabuska in the various debates on theses articles but I have learnt to trust his instinct on sock puppets. My gut feel (supported bu the editorial style of Gob Lofa and Apollo) is that we are dealing with a young editor who is learning rapidly. There is enough in common for me to suspect sock puppetry. There is more than enough evidence for a topic ban on troubles articles ----Snowded TALK 23:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What about this, this and this. I am bringing up that last link because it looks like to me (I may be wrong) that they have a very similar style of writing to Gob Lofa. Also when Alfie joined he had a had a knowledge of wiki policy which is unusual for a new editor.Apollo The Logician (talk) 08:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes. Here is the British Empire history page showing Alfie edit-warring on a number of fronts with a total of 75 edits. This workrate and the style of the edits are very similar to Gob Lofa's but not to Apollo's. Note here the use of GL's favourite edit summary "NPOV", but also the change of "Middle East" to "Southwestern Asia". This was an idiosyncrasy of GL's that I haven't seen anywhere else. Scolaire (talk) 08:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am adding Alfie Gandon to the case. Both editors should be investigated together. I'm aware that the account may be stale, but I'll leave that up to the responding admin/CU. Scolaire (talk) 08:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes Scolaire provide your evidence... but at your own SPI not this one because your going to confuse the whole matter or is that the intent? I filed this SPI with mymown evidence and I will let an admin decide whether or not to add extra suspects to this specific SPI. Mabuska (talk) 11:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nobody owns an SPI: not you or I. It is common practice to add one or even many names to an SPI while it is in progress. It is the one alleged sockmaster that is being investigated, after all. Berean Hunter has re-added Alfie Gandon here, but with the template in a different place, which is fine. Scolaire (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Scolaire: And I am fine with that as an admin decided it to be the case, which I above said would be alright. Mabuska (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think I've actually had that much direct interaction with Gob Lofa. A few mutual reverts, maybe, but nothing substantial springs to mind. I've seen nothing to indicate that Alfie Gandon is a sock of anyone; he and ATL certainly edit warred and mutually stalked each other so high interaction between the two is down to that at least in part. Nothing too substantial in any of the evidence presented here, in my opinion - it's all circumstantial. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stalked? What on earth are you talking about? I never stalked anyone. I even made a complaint at ANI due to Alfie Gandon wikihounding me.Apollo The Logician (talk) 12:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Allegedly stalked each other, then. I believe in his response to your complaint he accused you of doing the same to him? Mind you, you accused me of doing the same at one point even though it was you showing up on articles I'd been editing for years... ;-) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You've "never stalked anyone", Apollo? Ahem, you've already admitted doing so just 4 days ago. How soon we forget. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apollo doesn't like people following him though [120]. Mabuska (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My Response

While yes there are some similarities between me Lapsed/Gob Lofa/whoever I think after reading what I have to say below you will see these claims have no standing. Here are the disimilarities:

  1. I have not ever restored or added the label terrorist to a loyalist related article. In fact I have made positive contributions to one. This is in contrast to Gob Lofa.
  2. I edit philosophy articles. Just look at my user page, I have created numerous philosophy articles. Gob Lofa did not edit philosophy articles.
  3. I have edited sociology related articles while Gob Lofa has not.
  4. I have edited psychology related articles. Gob Lofa has not.
  5. I have edited mythology related articles. Gob Lofa has not.
  6. 73% of my edits are on articles and 14% on talk pages. If you compare this to Gob Lofa the difference is apparent. 91%, of his edits are on articles and only 5% on talk pages. Also 2.9% of edits are on user pages while 1.9% of Gob Lofa's are.[1][2]
  7. Differences in times of editing are also apparent. I NEVER edit from the period of 24:00-08:00 and rarely edit from 08:00-12:00AM. Gob Lofa has edited quite a bit from the period of 24:00-08:00 and has done a decent amount of editing from 08:00-12:00.[1][2]
  8. The top 20 articles I have edited are all different to Gob Lofa's top 20 articles he has edited. Same goes for categories.[2][1]
  9. I have deleted 179 edits while Gob Lofa has deleted 82 and he was here years longer than me.[2][2]
  10. I have uploaded 4 files in my months here and he has uploaded no files in his years here.[2][1]
  11. A few things that linked Gob Lofa/Lapsed Pacifist to all the accounts they had were the repeated use of the word "reword" in edit summaries, another thing was editing at odd hours of the night and all the accounts editing style was the same. User:GainLine who filed the SPI described it as "mainly linking, copy editing and some wording/spelling changes. Info sometimes added but very little in way of sources/refs." I do NOT act/edit this way.[3]
  12. Me and Gob Lofa's writing style's are VERY different. Just look at his talk page contributions and mine, you will see his English is far better then mine and that mine is far from perfect.
  13. Another User called User:Alfie Gandon is VERY similar to the guy I am accused of being a sock puppet of and I have had frequent disagreements with him. I am not the only user to notice this, User:Scolaire has as well but was hesitant to name him so I did. I suggest an admin look into this.
  14. Please see St107e's reply above.
  15. Please see Scolaire's reply above.
  16. Gob Lofa used a VPN to hide his location, I dont. User:Mabuska can confirm he did this. If you do an IP check on me you will see that I live in Ireland.
  17. I blank my talk page while Gof Lofa archived his (see revision history of both pages)

So what do you think User:Black Kite? Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c d https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Gob+Lofa&project=en.wikipedia.org
  2. ^ a b c d e f https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Apollo+The+Logician&project=en.wikipedia.org
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lapsed_Pacifist/Archive#18_June_2016

Bbb23, It would help a lot if you would remove the out-of-date "Closing" summary below. The account isn't blocked, and won't be unless this SPI says it's a sock. It's probably dissuading other admins from giving input. Scolaire (talk) 08:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There appeared to be a misperception that performing a CheckUser can "prove you are innocent". It cannot. It can provide technical data indicating socking, but it is of no real help in proving that socking is not happening. A Wikipedia editor can log out of their desktop computer, grab their phone or tablet and drive down to a local internet café and log in as a completely different registered user; and a CheckUser would never be the wiser. (See (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit) in the edit history.) There might be geolocation similarity, but many wireless carriers will distort even that information. And after a few months, there is even less technical information available through CheckUser. This is why so many socking blocks are made based on behavioral evidence.
Once other editors voiced suspicion that a banned socking editor had reappeared, the blocking admin no doubt observed all of the usual red flags before considering a socking block:
  • The editor was not new to Wikipedia editing. Within his first dozen edits the editor created content, cited references, generated a brand new article (with infobox!), added sub-level headers, wikilinks and formatting, and soon after was moving whole articles, marking edits as 'minor', etc. His very first Talk page comment had a proper header, proper signature, and was properly placed on the bottom of the page.
  • The editor edited in the same contentious subject matter, sharing more than a couple hundred articles in common with the suspected banned editor.
  • The editor displayed a similar point of view on the subject matter, and argued over many of the same specifics.
  • The editor was passionate enough about the topic to collect multiple warnings, ANI complaints and blocks over it; the same temperment needed to risk using sock puppets.
So the claims that the block for socking was made without evidence are completely without merit. Unpersuasive arguments have since been raised in Apollo's defense, including "but he edits other topics like Philosophy/Mythology". Expanding to other areas of interest is actually the norm, and it would be suspicious if he didn't eventually branch out. And the argument, "but he failed to sign a comment here, so he must be new". His very first comment was properly signed and formatted, discrediting that theory that he didn't know how. Your example may show laziness, but not inexperience (and your example shows Doug Weller also forgetting to sign, but he is of course a genuine newbie). And the argument, "but other editors also edit aggressively in that subject area, with high numbers of articles in common". No doubt true, (see Vintagekits & Alfie Gangon), but most editors take years to generate the drama record Apollo has achieved in just 9 months. I'm with Snowded and Mabuska in suspecting sock puppetry, but I'm not familiar enough with the topic area and editors there to know if the correct sockmaster has been identified. One thing I do know, regardless of outcome, Apollo owes Scolaire a pint for doing the yeoman's work in his defense here. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright well first of all Xenophrenic you have a huge grudge against me for trying to get you topic banned from your main editing area so clearly you are not neutral whatsoever in this dispute. Second of all what the hell does citing references, adding sections and adding infoboxs tell? All I had to do was look at sources for articles with those things and copy and paste the format. It's really not that hard at all. Third of all I didn't even create my sandbox until March 2017 when I joined this site around September 2016 or something like that. I didn't do this because I didn't know what the hell it even was. Since then I have used it to draft many articles. If I am Gob Lofa and I always knew what a sandbox was (which Gob Lofa clearly did) then why would suddenly stop using it when I created a a new account (this one) and then just start using it again? This the sign of a new editor not an editor who has been active for years. Fourth of all you yourself know I have edited quite a bit around the subject of atheism while Gob Lofa has not. Fifth of all Gob Lofa edited quite a bit in foreign affairs and archaeological/geological timelines/eras I have not done a single edit in this area. If I was Gob Lofa why would I suddenly stop editing in my second most active topic(s). Sixth of all I have created almost as many articles in my months here then Gob Lofa did in his years here (see sources below). Seventh of all Gob Lofa has done hundreds of thanks while I have only done then (again, sources below). You are full of shit and this desperate attempt to get me blocked will not work. Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Settle down, Apollo. You've built up an imaginary "huge grudge" against you in your head, but that is the only place it exists. I'm just not that into you. Sure, you've admitted you've been stalking my edits, and you been disruptively reverting me, and yes, you even filed an ANI report against me. But that's all on you. I ignored your stalking; I ignored your silly ANI report (which was about to boomerang on you, but you were blocked instead for socking); and I've ignored the drama on your Talk page and this SPI page until now. The only reason I posted here at all was because you falsely denied ever stalking anyone. Some advice: re-read Berean Hunter's last comment below and own up to being an edit-stalker. He says it will work in your favor. I've made no attempt to get you blocked, and believe me - when it comes to sockpuppetry, you do not want me to make the attempt. I'll wave your comments off as frustration due to the situation you are in. We can talk if and when you are back on your feet again. (And I've no clue what you are clamoring about re: sandboxes, which I never mentioned.) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stalking is not the right word. Looking at your edit history would be a better description. I never claimed you said anything about sandboxes. Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually he is spot on about some things. You hounded, right? Isn't that how you came to be at articles like Colonization of the Moon by following Alfie? I see where you have denied this but that is actually been put up as your defense. It was in well-chosen words with subtlety but that is what it would appear to be. He's right about you owing Scolaire that pint, too. I would suggest that you redact portions of your comments above before you completely exhaust the patience of those looking at this. Making attacks at an SPI is not what you were unblocked for, right? And you have either been hounding Alfie...or why were you there?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Berean Hunter:Yes that is how I discovered that article (looking at his editing history) but I did not hound anybody. The word hounding has a negative connotation which I would prefer to avoid.Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Scolaire: If you found a Gob Lofa article that Apollo edited before Alfie, that would be more interesting. [121]. What about a Gob Lofa created article that Alfie never edited but Apollo did such as Ulster Protestants? I still find Apollo's first edit [122] on that page curious as he just appears to add out of nowhere the Irish form of Ulster Protestants even though I haven't seen Apollo make such an edit of adding the Irish form of something before or since (maybe I'm wrong). Also curious is a language addition right off the back of @Jon C.: adding the Ulster-Scots form (even if a few days apart). Did he randomly end up there? Did he follow Jon C. there? Did he have it already on his watchlist and if so, why? Ironically Apollo cites Ulster Covenant as a article where they made a positive contribution to "loyalism", when Gob Lofa created Ulster Protstants, which was positive and even more related to both Ulster Covenant and modern loyalism by the fact the bulk of signatories and loyalists are Ulster Protestants. So there you go another similarity, both Apollo and Gob made "positive" contributions to "loyalist" articles despite their shared hard left-wing republicanism. Mabuska (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mabuska: Ulster Protestants was in my watchlist because I edit Ireland related articles. I decided to add the Irish of Ulster Protestants because if I recall correctly (I could be wrong btw) Jon C. said in his edit summary (when he added the Ulster Scots) "If someone knows the Irish add it". To say that Ulster Protestants is a loyalist article is one hell of a stretch. Let's also not forget that there was Ulster Protestants republicans like Ernest Blythe and Ronnie Bunting. Also are you seriously going to claim that because we both made positive contributions to similar articles we could be socks? Both of us have made positive contributions to Unionist articles (Ulster Covenant and Orange Order in ROI) is that evidence that we are socks?Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if you thought I was stating that Ulster Protestants is a loyalist article. I was stating that it was related due to the fact the Ulster Covenant was signed predominently by Ulster Protestants and the Ulster Protestants form the bulk of Ulster loyalists. Obviously not all Ulster Protestants signed the Covenant or are involved in loyalism. Sorry for any misunderstanding. Mabuska (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Read my revised comment: "If you found an odd Gob Lofa article that Apollo edited before Alfie", i.e. a non-Ireland-related one. Why do you find it strange for an Irish editor to add an Irish translation to an Irish article. You need to back off. You have opened the case; you have presented your evidence; there is somebody looking at it. There's no need for you to keep bashing him. And it's totally inappropriate to use an SPI as a forum to keep having a go at me. Scolaire (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Whilst I accept some people add pages to their watchlist but never edit I have edited Ireland related articles for over 10 years and still have many that aren't on my watchlist and I just find it weird that you just happen to have a Gob Lofa created article on your watchlist. To notice an edit summary made four days before your edit along with the fact you edit so many articles everyday which must surely all be on your watchlist, you must do some serious and deep watchlist trawling to find that one edit summary poking out. But it is only circumstantial and a curiousity at the end of the day.
@Scolaire: never seen your revised comment, and how did I have a go at you? Anyways you asked a question and I responded. As you yourself state no-one owns a SPI and if I want to present a curiousity that may have relevance to this case then who are you to say I can't given your protestations about me calling for you to file your own SPI? Please start behaving. Mabuska (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is also a curiousity I wanted to post earlier but couldn't get the time too. and it is the last "evidence" I wanted to add to this SPI, but as stated it is circumstantial and a curiousity at best. And how am I continually bashing them? I have reiterated many times that they may be innocent, that due process must be followed (as in the block shouldn't have happened until an investigation was carried out) and that it is up for admins to decide. I even posted this on their talk page. If anyone is bashing anyone it is you towards me. Mabuska (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I regress it is not the last comment I want to make on the matter. I finally found proof that Gob Lofa most likely used a VPN, check out [123]. Now that is some heavy global spread. It is obvious that Alfie also used a VPN [124]. By comparison [125] Apollo has FAR less global spread. Ironic I have been on this site for over 10 years compared to these three accounts and my global spread [126] is less than all three of them. Whilst this ultimately has no relevance on the matter as all someone has to do is not use a VPN, it may help Apollo's defence. Mabuska (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment DEWKIN coordinates data is near-worthless. I just ran the tool on myself [127]. I look like a globetrotter. In reality, 90%+ of my edits are from a given French city, and the rest from a smaller French town. I have NEVER even set foot on the American continent, much less edited from it. I have set foot in Greece... long before I had an account. Etc. I don't use a VPN, and my IPs, while dynamic, are always dead-easy to trace and geolocate with accuracy. What the tool gives you is almost unadulterated noise. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 07:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I just realised that the tool uses localisation information about the articles you edit, not your own IP. So it is entirely useless when discussing VPN. (I was surprised that such information was available at all to non-checkusers. Of course the answer is: it isn't.) — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 07:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then I was correct is saying ultimately it has no relevance to the matter then but for a dfferent reason. I don't fully understand what your saying its purpose is for though. Well if anything it does show that Gob Lofa and Alfie had a lot of overlap over something. Mabuska (talk) 10:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mabuska: Click on the little dots on the map; they show you articles about those locations whose articles the user edited. I have a little dot near Manchester not because I went to Manchester (by pure coincidence I did, actually), but because I edited Gladstone Pottery Museum, which contains an infobox with coordinates. I edited Parthenon and Greece, so I have dots there as well. Nevermind where I was when I edited that. It's a good map of interest for editors interested in geography or history. For other subjets, it's useless, but one could imagine making a conceptual 2D map of Wikipedia using categories, and extending the tool to that. That would be cool. But I'm getting off topic. I suggest you strike any comment you made about VPN and such where the tool's output, incorrectly interpreted, factored in your conclusions. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 11:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Striking isn't necessary...he just misinterpreted the results. It gave me a double take as I figured out the same thing about the coordinates data when I looked at my stats. I don't use a VPN and I've always edited from the same basic location in NC. You can tell by the dots along the coastlines that I have edited lighthouse articles among other places. That explains many of those west coast USA dots. I wish that we did have a tool that works the way he suggested.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I dropped a note to the tool author about possible confusion: here. I wish that we did have a tool that works the way he suggested. That may be possible. I doubt you store geoloc info on the fly, which may become a problem as the info grows stale, but I doubt there are many IP whose geoloc varies wildly with time. For instance I just traced an IP I used in 2006, and it shows within 200km of its original location. So it's not a technically difficult tool to write, I think, and the info could well be valuable (you'd need patience for all the traces, though). — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 12:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

break

So....what's the verdict?Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot here for one person to digest. They've only been alerted in the last few hours. I think you could be looking at sometime tomorrow for a verdict. Scolaire (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure why I would edit war with myself.Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Berean Hunter: I am also not sure why I would report myself to the ANI as well.
I was hoping for an explanation of why you happened to converge upon a Gob Lofa article with Alfie. I'm willing to accept the reason offered below as plausible. It was either hounding or good hand, bad hand accounts and I can accept that it was the former.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Berean Hunter: It shouldn't surprise you that Apollo turned up at Colonization of the Moon (a Gob Lofa article) just after Alfie if you consider the number of articles Alfie was reverting Apollo on around that time (12 reverts on 10 different articles in 21 days). It may not be best practice to follow an "adversary" to a strange article, but it's not evidence of sockpuppetry. If you found an "odd" Gob Lofa article that Apollo edited before Alfie, that would be more interesting. Scolaire (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for moving the comments to the appropriate place and offering the above rationale.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Account blocked. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A CU request was filed after the close which I'm declining as everything is stale. If I see a reason to reinstate as I look into this, I will do so. I haven't read everything and I'm not getting evidence back from Tool labs as presented in the links above. Requests are going unanswered but hopefully that is short-lived.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: I have blocked Alfie Gandon as a sock. After reviewing that editor's contribs and several of the socks, I have become convinced that they are the same editor. As a matter of point, admins exercise discretion and we do block sockpuppets without necessarily filing cases or having to present the evidence to others before doing so. There is ample reason to have suspicions considering that ATL does show up curating and working similar interests such as Colonization of the Moon where I don't see any other editors that edit the Troubles. Indeed, it looks odd that Alfie was already curating that article and made a removal which ATL reverts a short time later without having edited that article before. I'm planning to resume this a bit later as I've already spent a good deal of time reading and still am. I'm getting 502 bad gateway responses on many of the comparison tools from WM Labs as linked in this case which has been slowing things down and is frustrating. I'll take a look again later but that shouldn't stop any other admin that may also want to look at this from doing so.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't been able to convince myself that this is necessarily the same person but that does not preclude another admin from making that decision. I think that the hounding managed to increase his overlap into the other common areas and account for some of the odder convergences. I have seen too much disruptive behavior when looking across these articles, talk pages and noticeboards. All of that is certainly not ATL's fault. I have looked at other SPI cases to compare to our current case in case it were a mismatch to the specific master which I can't dismiss as a possibility. We don't prove innocence and I'm inconclusive regarding this case. I will leave this open for further evaluation but I will also state that if ATL is not blocked that a topic ban or topic ban discussion should take place. I'm having a hard time reconciling the POV problems with allowing this editor to continue editing in project space as they have been. If somehow they manage to resume editing, changes would need to be made such that they keep themselves from being the subject of admin noticeboard postings.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

06 August 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

  • Claíomh Solais (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

User shows an unusual overlap of interests and POV - Irish politics (supporting Irish nationalism), socialism/communism, and Jews in the British Labour Party. This user started editing a few months after Lapsed Pacifist was banned, and there's significant overlap between Lapsed Pacifist's most recent sock and Claíomh Solais see here There's even more overlap if you include all of Lapsed Pacifist's accounts. I know the CU data will be stale, but the old logs should give some clues. Jayjg (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

24 November 2020

Suspected sockpuppets


  • Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Konli17 currently has four open cases against him on ANEW. He was previously blocked for edit warring back in June. When I went through the page history of the Kobani page, I came across user:Alfie Gandon, who was a sockpuppet of Lapsed Pacifist and had a similar edit history as Konli17. Konli17 previously edit warred on the Kobani page: [128] [129]. While Konli17 does not primarily edit Ireland articles, he still does edit some Ireland articles such as these:[130] [131]. Additionally, he seems to always be awake when its GMT time meaning his IP address could trace back to Ireland. He seems to talk like a native English speaker. They keep changing southern and eastern Turkey and northern Iraq into Turkish Kurdistan and Iraqi Kurdistan respectively. His edits are very similar to the sockmaster:[132] [133] [134] [135]. Their edit summaries are similar: "tidy" and "see talk": [136] [137] [138] [139]. Thepharoah17 (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also point out that Konli17 uses British spelling in the words "neighbouring" and "characterisation" and uses words exclusive to British English such as "drivel" which are more indications that his IP address probably traces back to Ireland: [140] [141] [142]. Thepharoah17 (talk) 08:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exact same quotes said by the two users:[143] [144]. Thepharoah17 (talk) 08:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at his global account information, he made 34 contributions to the Irish Wikipedia, another sign that his IP address is in Ireland. Additionally, he made this edit to Pollagh (Achill), which is a village in Ireland: [145]. I'll admit when I first saw Alfie Gandon, I did not think that he was linked to Konli17 but the more investigating I do, the likelier it seems that Konli17 is a sock of him. Thepharoah17 (talk) 09:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both just add bare urls when adding references: [146] [147]. Come to think of it I am kind of surprised I did not notice the link between them before. Thepharoah17 (talk) 10:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One day after I opened this case, and nobody has bothered to look at this case yet. Well anyway, here are the user intersections with the sock puppets:159 with Lapsed Pacifist, 266 with Gob Lofa, 8 with Gestur, 9 with Mejor Los Indios, and 157 with Alfie Gandon. Thepharoah17 (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another similar edit to the sockmaster, this time back in 2008: [148] [149]. Konli17 was recently edit warring on the Kurdish nationalism page that Lapsed Pacifist was editing: [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] By now, I am almost 100% sure Konli17 is a sock of Lapsed Pacifist. Thepharoah17 (talk) 05:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the past sockpuppet investigations for Lapsed Pacifist, it says that the "editing sequence of the accounts are very similar, characterised by editing blocks of a number of hours duration sometimes at odd hours of day/night. Editing style of both identical, mainly linking, copy editing and some wording/spelling changes. Info sometimes added but very little in way of sources/refs," which is similar to Konli17. He rarely adds info in the way of refs, just links, copy edits, and makes some wording/spelling changes. Thepharoah17 (talk) 10:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I am now 100% sure Konli17 is a sock of Lapsed Pacifist. The editing style is just too similar as I described directly above. Konli17 uses this as an excuse often to change content, which is frequently not stated in the sources given. I do not think I even need a CheckUser as I initially thought I did. The edit histories are just too obvious. Thepharoah17 (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has now been a day and a half since I made this report and nobody has bothered to look at it. If I were an administrator, I would block Konli17. He currently has three cases against him on ANEW that have been there for two weeks and keep getting archived because nobody has bothered to take any action against him. Looks like this Lapsed Pacifist account is old, dating from January 2005 so that is probably why Konli17 was able to evade detection of being a sockpuppet for so long. Lapsed Pacifist was probably skilled at this. It would have taken lots of investigating as I have done in order to bring up enough evidence to pin him down as a sock. As I said before, I do not even need a CheckUser anymore. I just need an administrator to look at this case and surely they will see that there is enough evidence to block him. Like I said, I am 100% certain Konli17 is a sockpuppet of Lapsed Pacifist. Thepharoah17 (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, as you can see, maybe I am getting a little impatient since I opened this case a day and a half ago and nobody has still bothered to look at it. Hopefully, an administrator can look at this case soon and put an end to this disruptive editor. Thepharoah17 (talk) 16:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user is clearly WP:NOTHERE and is just here to push his agenda and should be blocked. Thepharoah17 (talk) 16:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By now, I have provided lots of evidence, maybe even too much. Thepharoah17 (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the most recent example now of how he snuck in a change in words in an edit:[155]. Notice how the words "Assyrians and Syriacs" are turned into "Kurds." Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More vandalism reported on the Qamishli page: [156] [157]

More vandalism: [158] [159]

It has been three days now since I first opened the case and nobody has still looked at it so I am just going to update the number of user intersections:161 with Lapsed Pacifist, 268 with Gob Lofa, 8 with Gestur, 9 with Mejor Los Indios, and 157 with Alfie Gandon. Thepharoah17 (talk) 09:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Similar edit summary. [160] and [161] Shadow4dark (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After checking both accounts (Konli17 and Alfie Gandon) saw very much similarities:

  • Ireland related edits
  • "Tidy"
  • Syria related edits
  • "Remove uncited"
  • "Better ..."

Beshogur (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking for similar edit summaries is a bit weird. Probably we have all once learned from others. At least I did it. I, too used edit summaries also used by Konli. We are both active in the Kurdish related articles. Konli makes many many improvements to the flow of articles and makes the them less repetitive. ThePharoah17, the actual filer of the investigation,Thepharaoh17 had to acknowledge this recently. after calling Konli a Vandal at the noticeboards. Who is the vandal now? Just having the idea to block someone like Konli, is not really constructive for Wikipedia.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He changes like his older accounts all edits to Turkish Kurdistann. Shadow4dark (talk) 16:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • More evidence Similar comments at talk page when he get reported by other users. [[162]] and [[163]] [[164]] and [[165]]. It sound me a WP:DUCK Shadow4dark (talk) 02:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly, here are literally the exact same quotes said by the two users: [166] [167]. Notice in the quotes how the user is even referring to the other user by their initials. Thepharoah17 (talk) 04:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "flies in the face" [168] [169]

The similarities between Konli17 and Alfie Gandon are too strong to be a coincidence. The smoking gun is: "the exact same quotes said by the two users: [170] [171]. Notice in the quotes how the user is even referring to the other user by their initials." Tradediatalk 07:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • These irish articles should be watched, he will be back. Shadow4dark (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Berean Hunter, maybe you can have a look at this. I ran CU on the odd chance of something popping up; I can't really say it did. But you blocked that Alfie sock, and may see something I don't. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After comparing a number of diffs, it is clear to me that Konli17 is indeed a sock of Alfie Gandon: there are too many similarities, idiosyncrasies. And even without that, Konli is plenty disruptive in their own right, with edit warring, POV pushing, personal attacks. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Blocked, closing. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lapsed_Pacifist/Archive&oldid=1141880199"