Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vote (X) for Change/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Vote (X) for Change

Report date March 9 2010, 18:56 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Jc3s5h

All these accounts confine their editing to Gregorian calendar, Julian calendar, and Revised Julian calendar, together with associated talk pages and talk pages of some contributors to these articles, such as talk:Chris Bennett. The IP addresses are all from the area of greater London, and have all been blocked for at least 3 months each. An easy to observe behavior linking Vote (X) for Change to 62.140.210.158 are these substantially identical edits, one and two, which among other things, make the highly unlikely claim that the Gregorian calendar, which was proclaimed by, and named after, a Roman Catholic pope (Gregory XIII), is anathema to Catholics. I cannot believe two independent editors would insert such a claim.

A less obvious link is the interaction between Vote (X) for Change and Chris Bennett; in this interaction, many references are made back to interactions between Bennett and the IP addresses.

This matter has also been reported at WP:ANI#Block evasion by Vote (X) for Change Jc3s5h (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

A sockpuppetry inquiry case may only be opened if there is evidence or good cause to suspect that there has been abuse of multiple accounts, or IPs. The English Wikipedia's policy on sock puppetry holds that, whilst merely owning multiple accounts or IPs is acceptable, utilising them in a disruptive, misleading or unhelpful manner is not.

It is well known that there is a time difference with the United Kingdom. While I was sleeping the case was called, the prosecution gave evidence and the judge handed down sentence, all without the accused having been aware of the proceedings.

This is not sockpuppetry. In this country, public libraries are not all open at the same time. Thus if the library I normally use is closed, say on a Wednesday, I must necessarily go elsewhere to file my contribution. You will notice, however, that I am careful to line up the indents to demonstrate that all the contributions come from one source.

The original complaint came from Chris Bennett, who has been repeatedly warned against foul - mouthed editing by a succession of administrators. His complaint against me was that I refused to discuss before editing and he persuaded an administrator (without giving me a chance to defend myself) that he was right. The issue on the table was that in the Signification of Terms section of Justinian's law code the various successive paragraphs do not develop a single legal argument. In fact the Digest entries are arranged first according to author, then according to volume number of his work, then according to page number in the particular volume. Bennett was pushing the ridiculous notion that because one paragraph discusses the intercalary day in the Julian calendar a subsequent paragraph discussing the intercalary month in the Republican calendar must necessarily relate to the same thing, although intervening paragraphs, which could only relate to the Republican calendar, used identical phrasing. Instead of coming to the debating table he applied for page protection.

When the matter came up again a few weeks ago he again refused debate and succeeded in getting an administrator to block. His pals are [redacted] (the prosecutor here, who uses an alias) who was described as "ridiculous" by a contributor to Talk:Common Era and Joe Kress, who was described as "a racist" by a contributor to Iranian Calendar. (You will find the relevant comment on Joe Kress's talk page).

Bennett cleared me to resume editing a few days ago but because I didn't toe the party line went back to the administrators and got another block. [redacted] is now claiming that an edit I made to Gregorian calendar is grounds for an indefinite block. No reason is given for the claim that what I say is "unlikely" to be true. The Catholic Church has not claimed it is untrue, only [redacted]. Is he an expert on canon law or just a "drive - by" expert on canon law? He practises as a notary, and lawyers are very good at hiding the fact that they know very little about the subjects they claim to be expert on. 217.169.37.146 (talk) 10:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

The name kind of says it all, don't it? Anyway, the IPs are all already blocked for a long time, and now so is Vote (X) for Change. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date March 12 2010, 19:05 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Jc3s5h

"New calendar" continues to edit calendar related articles as did the indef blocked User:Vote (X) for Change. In particular he makes a similar argument that Vote (X) for Change and associated IPs made by [1] that the Soviet Union might not have adopted the Gregorian calendar and instead might have adopted the New Calendar despite the fact that the Soviet Union made it's calendar change in 1918, five years before the New Calendar was proposed. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Numerous sources, such as The Oxford Companion to the Year, say that Russia might not have adopted the Gregorian calendar. Is it really credible that a virulently atheistic dictator whose mind was affected by syphilis would have adopted a calendar bearing the name of a Roman Catholic Pope?

To support his claim that Russia adopted the Gregorian calendar [redacted] would have to cite a reliable source stating that. He hasn't, which suggests he can't.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by New calendar (talk • contribs) 19:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Blocked. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date March 11 2010, 06:10 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Jc3s5h

Vote (X) for Change continues to edit Talk:Julian calendar using 195.195.89.70. His/her edits make explicit references to previous activity, such as "Since I called the ballot, I have found that the new calendar already has a name - the Meletian calendar." This refers the ballot mentioned in the paragraph immediately above, which was added by Vote (X) for Change. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk note: IP is registered to a local library in the same city as a previously blocked Vote (X) for Change IP SpitfireTally-ho! 16:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Blocked 72 hours. Tim Song (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date March 19 2010, 17:33 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Jc3s5h (talk)

The editor states that he/she is now using the account User:Meletian. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users
CheckUser requests
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note Bagged and tagged. TNXMan 19:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date March 19 2010, 22:38 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Jc3s5h (talk)

The editor states he/she has resumed use of 82.45.211.16 and reinstated edits that the editor had made. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users
CheckUser requests
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions

Blocked 1 month. Tim Song (talk) 07:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date March 21, 2010 15:14 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Jc3s5h (talk)

The editor has made an edit which makes similar arguments to those made by Vote (X) for change and started a bogus sock puppet investigation on me. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users
CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.

Self-endorse for CU to look for a possible IP block. Tim Song (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note blocked and tagged. Tim Song (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date March 30, 2010 14:28 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Jc3s5h (talk)

The editor has made an edit which makes attempts to change the name of the Revised Julian calendar to a name, Meletian, that has only been mentioned by Vote (X) for change puppets. The editor also resumed a conversation with User:Chris Bennett that previously had been carried on by Vote (X) for change puppets. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users
CheckUser requests
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk note: Blocked by Flyguy649 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Tim Song (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date April 6, 2010 12:20 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Jc3s5h (talk)

The editor has made a series edits to Gregorian calendar, one of which argues that the Gregorian calendar "is anathema to Catholics". Said argument has only been made by Vote (X) for change puppets. The edit also replaces the phrase "Gregorian calendar" with "new calendar" in several places, which was a tactic of Vote (X) for Change. The IP address is in the London area as were the IP addresses previously used by Vote (X) for Change. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users
CheckUser requests
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Blocked the ip for a month per WP:DUCK. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 29, 2010 19:35 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Jc3s5h (talk)

The editor has made a series edits to Gregorian calendar, Revised Julian Calendar, and Julian Calendar, making the same points as User:Vote (X) for Change and associated IP addresses. A pair of essentially identical edits are this one from March 15 and this one from April 24.The IP address is in the London area as were the IP addresses previously used by Vote (X) for Change. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users
CheckUser requests
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions


This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 29, 2010 21:17 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Jc3s5h (talk)

The editor is attempting to revive a proposal to change the name of the Revised Julian Calendar article that was advocated by User:Vote (X) for Change. Once again, the IP address is from the London area and the address has been blocked twice in March for related block evasion. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users
CheckUser requests
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions


This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 30, 2010 13:08 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Jc3s5h (talk)

The editor is again editing calendar related articles, including a repetition of a specific edit to a talk page archive. This IP address has been used by Vote (X) for Change since April 19.

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users
CheckUser requests
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note Quack. Blocked for a week. TNXMan 14:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date May 2, 2010 16:41 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Jc3s5h (talk)

The editor is again editing Julian calendar, and is in violation of the 3RR rule as well. The IP address, like all of those used by Vote..., is in the greater London area. Since the sock puppet investigation mechanism has failed to control this user, I am also requesting permanent semi-protection of the Julian calendar article at [[ Wikipedia:Requests for page protection‎]].

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I am the person who registered Vote (X) for Change last winter. It's a public holiday here so I've been taking a rest from editing as the library is shut. Whilst browsing I noticed Julian calendar had been protected so I investigated.

I edited as an IP editor for many years before I registered this account so to claim I am a sockpuppet of it is absurd. Also, I long ago abandoned this account and put a template on it. Someone has removed the templates so I'll regularise the position immediately.

The editor who was originally blocked was given a three month ban in February, so he or she is going to be free to resume editing very soon.

I noticed on RfPP a claim that Jc3s5h and Chris Bennett are meatpuppets. I would go along with that and put Joe Kress in the frame as well. If you want diffs just ask. A few days ago I posted a note to his talk page. More or less simultaneously Jc3s5h blanked it. You never heard of anyone blanking another user's talk page before - he was obviously put up to it.

I'm sorry your weekend has been spoiled by this. There is a way to put a stop to it - stop feeding the trolls!

Comments by other users
CheckUser requests
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions


2 weeks. Tim Song (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date May 7, 2010 14:50 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Jc3s5h (talk)

The editor is again editing Talk:Julian calendar, using an IP address that edited User:Vote (X) for Change ‎ back in March.

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users
CheckUser requests
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note Quacks to me. IP reblocked for 3 more months. Elockid (Talk) 18:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date May 10, 2010 17:08 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Jc3s5h (talk)

The editor is again editing Gregorian calendar, using an IP address that edited an archive of User:Vote (X) for Change ‎ past edis back in April. A block on this IP account for block evasion expired only 3 days ago.

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users
CheckUser requests
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note Blocked for a week. TNXMan 17:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date May 24, 2010 15:02 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Jc3s5h (talk)

The editor is again editing Gregorian calendar, using an IP address that, in February, was blocked for 3 months as a sockpuppet of Vote (X) for Change.

As of May 25, the IP address 212.85.12.187, which was blocked in April and May for block evasion, is also in use. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users

So Jc3s5h has interfered with the template hoping I can't defend myself. Lucky I checked out his claim that I couldn't give evidence for the defence in a claim brought by him. His own evidence shows there is no case to answer. When this IP was blocked Vote (X) for Change had not even been created. I took over the conduct of the ballot from another editor who had been blocked. Thank you. 156.61.160.1 (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser requests
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note Gregorian calendar reprotected 3 months for continued sockpuppetry. 212.85.12.187 reblocked 1 month for continued block evasion. 156.61.160.1 reblocked 3 months for the same reason. Elockid (Talk) 14:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date May 24, 2010 15:02 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Jc3s5h (talk)

The editor is again editing calendar related articles. One edit summary specifically mentions Vote (X) for Change. As usual, IP address is located in England. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
CheckUser requests
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions


Hardblocked 2 weeks. Tim Song (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date May 24, 2010 15:02 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Jc3s5h (talk)

The editor is again editing calendar related articles.

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Since when has it been a crime to edit calendar - related articles?195.194.10.178 (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser requests
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note Blocked (not by me). TNXMan 19:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Blocked by me. Also Iranian calendars semi-protected for one week. Elockid (Talk) 19:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Conclusions


Report date June 10, 2010 12:30 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Jc3s5h (talk)

The editor is again editing calendar related articles, in particular claiming in the Soviet calendar that the Soviet Union may have adopted the Revised Julian calendar (which was created by some of Orthodox churches), and the Soviets managed to adopt the calendar 4 years before it was created. Vote (X) for Change made a habit of creating deliberate confusion between the Gregorian and Revised Julian calendars.

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
CheckUser requests
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions

information Administrator note Agreed. Blocked 2 weeks. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date 14, 2010 12:33 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Jc3s5h (talk)

The editor is again editing calendar related articles from a Greater London IP address and making reference, in edit summaries, to administrators who have been active in this case.

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Too many lies are being told. This editor got me blocked because he said I had claimed the Soviets adopted a calendar four years before it was devised. This is rubbish. I said it was adopted in 1923. Suggest editor be banned for disruption (fabricating evidence). He is no value to the community at all. 195.191.66.225 (talk) 13:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser requests
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions

information Administrator note IP blocked one week. Soviet calendar, Revised Julian calendar and Computus semi-protected for 3 months. Elockid (Talk) 20:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date June 17, 2010 10:36 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Jc3s5h (talk)

The editor is again editing calendar related articles from a Greater London IP address; edit summaries show continuing theme of hostility toward the Gregorian calendar and Roman Catholicism. A 2 week block of this address for the same behavior has just expired. Jc3s5h (talk) 10:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

This isn't hostility - its an NPOV edit putting both sides of the argument in a dispassionate manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.84.129 (talk) 10:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser requests
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note IP reblocked 1 month. Elockid (Talk) 19:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date June 19, 2010, 14:54 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Jc3s5h (talk)

The editor is again editing calendar related articles from a Greater London IP address; edit summaries read "Elockid is also under investigation at ANI for telling everyone people are banned when they're not. See article revision history." When it quacks like a duck....

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
CheckUser requests
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note Iranian calendars semi-protected for one month. IP blocked one year. Elockid (Talk) 15:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Conclusions


Report date June 26, 2010, 13:09 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Jc3s5h (talk)

The editor is again editing calendar related articles from a Greater London IP address; this IP address was blocked for 2 weeks on June 10.

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
CheckUser requests
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note IP reblocked 2 months. Elockid (Talk) 13:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Conclusions


Report date June 28, 2010, 11:21 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Jc3s5h (talk)

The editor is again editing calendar related articles; this time the Geolocate function idicates IP address is in Leicester, England. this edit a statement that the IP address is being used by Vote (X)for Change: "As a new contributor, I thought it would be a good idea to have a user - name appropriate to the edits I was making at the time - thus Vote (X) for Change when setting up the ballot and New calendar when explaining the new leap year rules."

The account was blocked for 72 hours on 24 June. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
CheckUser requests
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note Blocked 1 week for block evasion or if this is true, blocked for meatpuppetry. Elockid (Talk) 12:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Conclusions


Report date June 29, 2010, 13:59 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Jc3s5h (talk)

The editor is again editing a calendar related talk page; this time the Geolocate function idicates IP address is in Leicester, England. This edit restores information that was restored by various socks recently, and contains the edit summary "I added a link to the Leicester site. Vote (X) is not involved." Jc3s5h (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users:

The evidence does not allege that any sockpuppetry is involved now - it only alleges sockpuppetry in the past. 212.50.184.130 (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quack. If it's not a sockpuppet it's a meat puppet. --Chris Bennett (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser requests
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk note: Blocked by Tim Song for 3 months. Elockid (Talk) 21:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Conclusions


Report date June 30, 2010, 11:37 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Jc3s5h (talk)

The editor is again editing calendar related talk pages; this time the Geolocate function idicates IP address is in London, England. This edit restores information that was restored by various socks recently, and contains complaints about the fact that the editor has been repeatedly reverted.

The account was blocked for 2 weeks on June 12.

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
CheckUser requests
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note reblocked for 1 month. Elockid (Talk) 16:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date July 2, 2010, 09:20 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Jc3s5h (talk)

The editor is again editing calendar related talk pages; this time the Geolocate function idicates IP address is in London, England. The edit summaries of the contributions dated July 2 make it evident this is a sockpuppet of Vote.... The address 212.85.12.187 has been blocked three times for block evasion, the most recent being a one-month block beginning May 25.

I will not bother repairing the talk pages until a long block is imposed. Jc3s5h (talk) 09:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

It's five o'clock in the morning in Vermont and Jc3s5h has been hunched over his computer all night waiting for this opportunity to make trouble. At last he's saying something sensible - he's not going to remove other people's contributions from talk pages. Talk pages don't need repair - you can't vandalise them because they're discussion forums. After he gets some sleep he might like to bone up on the difference between sockpuppets and alternate accounts, which are perfectly legal. 212.85.12.187 (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser requests
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note 212.85.12.187 reblocked 6 months. Elockid (Talk) 11:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Conclusions
Report date July 12, 2010, 13:13 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Jc3s5h (talk)

The editor is again editing Talk:Julian calendar; The edit summary contains a personal attack against User:Chris Bennett and me; we have both been active in this SPI. The IP is located in London. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Now 86.174.115.50 is complaining about the way the puppets have been mistreated. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

So saying about an editor "all pretence of reason is cast aside, to reveal the pitiful, naked troll beneath", describing her as a "hydra - headed Intercalary Fool" and unjustly accusing her (in an SPI of lying about the date of adoption of the Eastern European calendar in the Soviet Union is not a personal attack meriting a block while an unspecified alleged personal attack is? Pull the other one, please. 86.174.115.50 (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser requests
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note IP blocked 1 week. Talk:Julian Calender protected again. Elockid (Talk) 13:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Report date July 14, 2010, 14:23 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Jc3s5h (talk)

The editor is again User talk:Jc3s5h. This edit was made a few days after a one-month block for abusing multiple accounts expired. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

No case to answer. No evidence whatsoever of abuse of multiple accounts has been adduced. 86.152.101.215 (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser requests
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note Reblocked 3 months and reprotected some pages. Elockid (Talk) 21:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Report date July 18, 2010, 18:53 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Jc3s5h (talk)

In this edit the editor asks the editor being addressed on the talk page to respond to User talk:Meletian, a known sockpuppet of Vote (X) for Change. Also, like previous IP sockpuppets, the address is in London. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the comment above, so you don't need to trawl through the entire post "I will also be watching my talk page User talk:Meletian in case you find it more convenient to post there." - seems a bit ducky. S.G.(GH) ping! 21:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Jc3s5h is such a liar. He says "both Chris Bennett and myself have been active in this SPI." This case is 26 pages long and Bennett has uttered just six words, one of which was an animal noise. 81.159.32.4 (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser requests
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Painfully obvious and self-admitted sock; blocked as such. Kuru (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: IP blocked. Nothing much else to do. Elockid (Talk) 19:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Report date July 25, 2010, 14:48 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Jc3s5h (talk)

Another calendar-related edit immediately upon expiration of a three-month block for sockpuppetry. This IP address has been blocked three times for being a sockpuppet of Vote.... Also, like previous IP sockpuppets, the address is in London. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
CheckUser requests
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note IP reblocked 6 months. Elockid (Talk) 15:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

27 July 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by RolandR

Return of a disruptive clone on calendar pages and related admin noticeboards. Previously blocked for two weeks and one month for this. RolandR (talk) 09:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk note: Blocked by TFOWR. Nothing much left to do. Elockid (Talk) 12:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

27 July 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by RolandR

[2] RolandR (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note Blocked 1 week. Elockid (Talk) 15:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Report date 31 July 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Chris Bennett

IP is repeatedly trying to restore edits made to Iranian calendars by previously confirmed and currently blocked sock 212.85.13.143, which had led to a semi-protection of the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iranian_calendars&oldid=369186876) that recently expired. As usual, the IP is in the London area. Admission that the IP is the blocked user is at the Talk page of the sock-puppet account Meletian: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMeletian&action=historysubmit&diff=375963195&oldid=375743152

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Report date 4 August 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Chris Bennett

IP is now using WP:ANI as his/her soapbox: WP:ANI#This_is_getting_ridiculous

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note The first IP seems a bit more static than the second IP, so I have blocked the first one for 2 weeks. I'm not sure about the second IP, so I made that one 1 week. Unfortunately, there is not enough recent disruption to semi-protect ANI at this time. –MuZemike 16:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Report date 8 August 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by User:Jc3s5h

This edit summary proves the sock status: "When an account is retired it loses the potential to become a sockmaster." Jc3s5h (talk) 14:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

It proves "sock status" is negative". 92.24.105.164 (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a broad range-block would be needed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here's your chance to explain why.92.24.105.164 (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Report date 19 March 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by User:Jc3s5h

edit to Calendar reform is a renewal of the user's campaign to claim that in many countries the Gregorian calendar and the revised Julian calendar cannot be distinguished. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note Calendar reform semi-protected. Elockid (Talk) 21:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

20 July 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


This edit to Gregorian calendar is a renewal of the user's campaign to promote what the editor calls the "Milankovic rule", which is more-or-less the same as the Revised Julian calendar (another article Vote... has been active on. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:43, 19 March 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
21 July 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


In this edit another sock substantially restores an edit made by a sock (82.198.240.52) that was blocked yesterday. As usual, the new sock is located in the UK (although this time the Geolocate button did not return a city). Jc3s5h (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit to the IP's talk page makes it evident that this IP has been used by Vote (X) for change in the past. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:37, 21 July 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
22 July 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Block log shows this London address was used as a sock earlier this month. Now it is making more edits to Gregorian calendar and Mercedonius. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:42, 22 July 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
28 July 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Another London IP edits three calendar-related articles and WT:Edit warring, where this sockpuppet investigation has been mentioned. This IP address was blocked on 23 July for block evasion. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:52, 28 July 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

No check performed, but blocked for obvious block evasion. TNXMan 15:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


28 July 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


More editing of time and calendar related pages by a London IP. Mercedonius in particular has been edited frequently by socks of Vote.... Jc3s5h (talk) 21:14, 28 July 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

IP blocked 1 month; Gregorian calendar and Mercedonius semi-protected 2 weeks. –MuZemike 21:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


30 July 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


UK IP editor restores a version by 82.198.240.52, which is currently blocked as a sockpuppet of Vote (X) for Change. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:13, 30 July 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

Roman calendar now semi-protected. I'm not going to bother blocking the IP. –MuZemike 16:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

08 August 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


This IP is making calendar-related remarks here after having been blocked by Scientizzle for 31 hours on 30 July as a sock of Vote.... The IP is located in the UK. Jc3s5h (talk) 10:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to DoRD's remark below that (s)he is not sure what else can be done, this user tends to re-use the same addresses repeatedly. An option that I don't believe has been attempted would be to report the matter to the ISP or library, and if no satisfactory answer is received, issue long term blocks. Schools that fail to control this type of behavior are routinely blocked for one year at a time; I believe the same reasoning should be applied to libraries. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that, but with the large variety of IPs he has used, and since he edits anonymously, I'm not convinced that long-term blocks or reports to ISPs would be effective. Of the eight of his IPs I've recently blocked, only one has been blocked more than twice, and half have been blocked only once. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand...I haven't looked to see if any attempt has been made, or if one already exists, but perhaps an edit filter would be more effective. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:20, 8 August 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

information Administrator note IP blocked, but since it's a dynamic address, I'm not sure anything else can be done. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

08 August 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


More calendar edits the day after a one month block for socking Vote... expires. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Jc3s5h (talk) 16:28, 8 August 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
16 August 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Edit to Gregorian calendar immediately upon expiration of one week block for block evasion. Address has been blocked twice for block evasion, with Vote... named specifically in the first block summary. As usual address is located in UK. Jc3s5h (talk) 10:47, 16 August 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
20 August 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


same as 82.35.114.3, blocked earlier today David Biddulph (talk) 02:57, 20 August 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
07 September 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


An IP previously blocked as a puppet of Vote... has once again edited Revised Julian calendar and has once again whined about Chris Bennet at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Jc3s5h (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


16 September 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Address blocked 3 times for block evasion. Marked on talk page as suspected sockpuppet of Vote.... Currently editing calendar-related articles. In this edit the IP states "...I have previously used an electioneering account (perfectly legitimately) which administrators have decided to block until the end of time." Jc3s5h (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
18 September 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Vote... admits to continuing sockpuppetry in this edit with the phrase "The reason why there is no reference in the article is because The Monster removed the reference I put in." Address has 5 previous blocks for block evasion, the most recent of which, for 1 month, expires today. I suggest a 1 year block, as is done with schools that constantly cause vandalism. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

information Administrator note Blocked 6 months. Elockid (Talk) 15:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


18 September 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Restoration of edit by a puppet of Vote.... Three previous blocks for block evasion, IP is in London. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

information Administrator note Also blocked 6 months. Elockid (Talk) 01:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

25 September 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


More calendar-related vandalism, such as to Tropical year (note citation damage) immediately upon expiration of 2 week block evasion block. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

information Administrator note Reblocked 3 months. Elockid (Talk) 15:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

03 October 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


London IP restores point made by puppets of Vote. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:16, 3 October 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

Already blocked. If more activity occurs, please refile here or at AIV. TNXMan 16:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


07 October 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


In this edit the IP asserts the UK is the only European country to have adopted the Gregorian calendar and claims other European countries use Julian, improved Julian (whatever that is), or Revised Julian calendars. This is a frequent theme of Vote.... The IP is located in the usual location, London. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:05, 7 October 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
07 October 2011
Suspected sockpuppets
Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:44, 7 October 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


10 October 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Editing of calendar-related passage. Admits he is Vote in this edit. Editing occurs shortly after 48 hour block for sockpuppetry expires. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:38, 10 October 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
11 October 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Is adding statements from the banned user, see [3]. Monty845 19:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(combined) This edit is a restoration of an edit by one of Vote's socks. Also note a one month block for block evasion expired a few days ago. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:58, 11 October 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

The IP is blocked, so I'll mark for close. Please re-file if more activity occurs. TNXMan 20:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


13 October 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


This edit restores an edit by a previous sock of Vote. Edit immediately follows expiration of a 2 week block for block evasion. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:55, 13 October 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

information Administrator note IP reblocked. Elockid (Talk) 20:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

02 January 2015
Suspected sockpuppets


Admitted IPsock - see User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Unblock_request: [4], [5] JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Add per User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Unblock_request [6] JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2015 (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
08 July 2015
Suspected sockpuppets


In this edit the IP promotes the Revised Julian calendar, which was one of Vote...'s favorite topics. The change is to Julian calendar, which was an article frequently edited by Vote.... The location of the IP is London, same as Vote.... Jc3s5h (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2015 (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
26 June 2015
Suspected sockpuppets


Sockmaster was blocked for disruptive editing on mostly time and calendar related articles. Suspected puppet has edited Anno Domini, stating a controversial position without providing any citation to a reliable source and, in the edit summary, inaccurately claiming consensus from a Reference Desk discussion. Both IPs are in the London area. Sockmaster has a 6 month block for disruptive editing. Suspected puppet is just coming off a two week block for disruptive editing. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC) Jc3s5h (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor, User:AstroLynx, noticed a similarity in the Islamic calendar talk page:

By the way: are 87.81.147.76 and 156.61.250.250 the same? According to Geolocate both IP addresses appear to be London based. IP 87.194.35.154, who in 2011 had a long discussion on this very same topic, was apparently also London based, but perhaps this is a coincidence. AstroLynx (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Jc3s5h (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I just switched on this computer and I was really surprised to see this discussion. I have just edited Anno Domini - what I actually said was that AD 285 and AD 552 were the first years of the Metonic cycle. This is simple arithmetic. 284 divided by 19 gives remainder 18, but since the Alexandrian year begins on 29 August that's equivalent to remainder 19. Remainder 19 or 0 can be considered the first year of the 19 year cycle. 552 gives remainder 1 - here year 1 is considered the first year of the cycle. Dionysius initialised his cycle in 1BC (year 0), so here again 0 or 19 is considered the first year of the cycle. There's nothing controversial in this - you should give Jc3s5h's claim that this is unsourced short shrift - indeed you should give all his claims short shrift. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.81.147.76 (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just spotted another claim by Jc3s5h that I said there was a consensus at the reference desk and was being ingenuous. I deal with that in my edit summary. Jc3s5h obviously doesn't check his facts - another reason to consign his report to the garbage can. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jc3s5h claims that a remark AstroLynx made is "evidence". That's a joke. At Talk:Hijra (Islam) this evening an editor asked AstroLynx if he was me (or if I was AstroLynx, I'm not sure which). 87.81.147.76 (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

16 August 2015

Suspected sockpuppets


156.61.250.250 was blocked for 6 months in May for persistent disruptive editing. A couple of days after that block, the 5.150.92.20 IP address resumes the blocked editor's pattern of editing, beginning with specifically continuing a discussion someone had with the blocked editor with the preface "I think it's time to add a comment which has been sitting on 156.61.250.250's talk page for days waiting to be pasted over." The blocked IP editor's edits concerning the Julian calendar in the state of Georgia have been continued by the new IP address here, which is an oddly specific thing for two IP address that both geolocate to London, England to both have in common. Both editors also use Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language[7][8] and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)[9][10] (both IP addresses arguing the for the removal of Pending Changes there). This appears to be a pretty obvious case of block evasion by the IP. - Aoidh (talk) 12:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment for closing admin - In addition to Vanjagenije's comments below, I'd recommended the original IP's block be reset to match this IP's block as well, since they've been editing in spite of that block this entire time and that IP address seems to be a different computer that they will return to using when this IP's block expires. - Aoidh (talk) 09:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

The last comment on this SPI (now in the archive):

There is nothing to check here.

- Risker, filing the complaint. 5.150.92.20 (talk) 12:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That previous comment had "nothing to check" because you were simply using multiple IP addresses. This, however, is you using a different IP address after being blocked from editing, which is not permitted; if you are blocked from editing, you lose your editing privileges. - Aoidh (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The matter was referred to Jimbo, because the "sockmaster" was blocked without reason given, and on Jimbo's talkpage the blocking administrator was evasive and refused to comply with WP:ADMINACCT. 5.150.92.20 (talk) 08:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Completely irrelevant and probably inaccurate as well. What happened previously does not change the fact that you were blocked for six months from editing, and here you are evading that block. You are not permitted to edit on Wikipedia until the block is expired or you make a successful unblock request, and if you continue to try to edit that block is likely to be extended or reset, so that it is six months from this moment, and not six months from when you were initially blocked. Given that you've been editing in violation of the block this entire time, that seems the likely course of action. - Aoidh (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

21 August 2015

Suspected sockpuppets


As indicated in [11] sockpuppets of Vote..., the London-area sockmaster, have been active on Talk:Tropical year. Two edits by two London-area IPs ([12] and [13] have the effect of making it difficult for editors to notice that archives exist for the talk page, thus concealing material unfavorable to Vote... and its puppets, such as Talk:Tropical year/Archive 2#Introduction of changes by 156.61.250.250 Jc3s5h (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two additional edits by User:86.159.14.119 of greater London restore the false claim that GMT is always the same as another version of time, UT1. An example of the insertion of this false claim by one of Vote...'s socks is here. (Added 22 August 2015 13:05 UT.)

Vote... has now moved to 86.135.151.248, as demonstrated by this edit. (Added 22 August 2015 14:11 UT.)

Also 86.153.131.100, per these obsessive and argumentative edits to articles about his favorite subject:

  1. Typically aggressive edit summaries:
  • [14] "Clarify where this deflection of the vertical malarkey fits in."
  • [15] "Not 'obsolete' as it is still there and working."
  • [16] "Anyone can calculate this."
  1. Loves to quote policies in edit summaries: [17]] "WP:NOTED: It may be worth noting but we don't say so."
  2. Unsourced additions of OR] / opinion: [18] "Airborne navigation, would also have no problems with this error as any precision navigation required is achieved by other methods."

JoeSperrazza (talk) 07:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also Special:Contributions/86.145.209.15, as demonstrated by London location and edit summary showing awareness of socking behaviour: "Undid revision 677409204 by JoeSperrazza(talk)This is a dynamic IP address mate. No guarantee of a sock of anyone." Jc3s5h (talk) 08:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Something seems very wrong here. There is a list of six similar IP addresses. JoeSper is claiming that the edit summaries of 86.153.131.100 are similar to the previous IPs. They are editing in similar article areas, but many of us do that. Jc3s5h is claiming that 86.145.209.15 must be a sock puppet because he left two identical edit summaries (since he made both edits, the allegation has to be that he is a sock puppet of himself). 86.153.131.100 and 86.145.209.15 are both recorded as dynamic IP addresses belonging to British Telecom and the sequence of edits suggests that they are very obviously the same user. However, there is no overlap and both IP addresses have not been used at the same time, so it is fairly clear that if they are same user, the IP address has recycled.

The much bigger problem is that the accusers are claiming that the IPs all locate to the same place and that this is the main plank of the claim that they are the same user. Geolocate on IP addresses is (deliberately) not precise and the location can be off by quite a number of miles (typically up to 10). The accusers clearly did not bother to geolocate the IP addresses very well because only two geolocate to London England (not six as suggested). The first two geolocate to Watford (around 30 miles away and well beyond the error in geolocate). The last two geolocate to Guildford (which is even further away at around 40 miles). It is clear that the IP addresses as a set are not related to one another. The first two may be. The middle two may be. The last two probably are. However, there can be no relationship between the first two; the second two and the last two. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My report is based on behavioral evidence, not on geolocation. Regarding the latter, the banned user frequently discusses his travels (often by train) to find public-access IPs, not all of which are marked by hostname as being public access (e.g., small shops' WiFi access, etc.) since the libraries he frequents now have long-term blocks in place. This banned user has been socking in this same manner for many years and tries hard to dodge WP:DUCK and to use well-meaning editors' WP:AGF to keep being WP:DE. JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point, but while I was sifting through the IP users contributions etc., I came across something even more disturbing. Unfortunately, I had to go to an urgent appointment so I had to leave it. The spotted problem was, that if the IP addreses are supposed to be the same editor hoping from location to location, he is doing it remarkably quickly indeed. 86.153.131.100 (located in Guildford made an edit to Prime meridian (Greenwich) at 12:33 on 19/8/15. 86.159.14.119 made an edit to Tennessee State Route 840 from North London at 12:49 on the same day. That is, he travelled the 45 miles between the two locations (as the crow flies - which I don't suppose he can) in just 16 minutes. he would have had to travel at 168 miles per hour assuming that the time interval is between [return] key presses and not taking account of the time taken to compose the edit etc. There are other examples of impossible journey timings, but that one is the best. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the block has been enacted, but should be revisited. Even a WP:DUCK cannot be in two places at the same time. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not really helpful. I suggest you read up on VPNs, proxies, etc. --NeilN talk to me 17:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
None of the IP addresses are anything other than what they appear to be. Legitimate IP addresses used by the UK's largest telecom provider that geolocate more or less exactly where they say they are. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This tells me you didn't take my suggestion and/or have not done any analysis (or are ignoring it). --NeilN talk to me 17:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also see my response on the most recent IPsock's talk page. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am no expert on the accuracy of IP locations, but I find various location service get the location of my computer wrong by hundreds of miles. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a well known and difficult problem. There are a number of papers on the topic one can find at the ACM digital library (e.g., [21]) or using Google Scholar, but some background in telecommunications is helpful. JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • The most recent edit by any of those IPs was on August 26, which is a week and a half ago. Others are older. The way the user hops around, it makes no sense to block them. A range block is not feasible because of its size. The whole discussion about geolocation is a distraction. As the filer rightfully said, this is about behavior, not about location. Nonetheless, unfortunately, there's nothing to do here. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

23 September 2015

Suspected sockpuppets


this edit restores material inserted by a known sockpuppet of Vote..., 156.61.250.250. 31.54.205.164 is located in the greater London area, as was Vote.... Jc3s5h (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2015 (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

02 October 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

Edit pattern Sjö (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2015 (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

information Administrator note Blocked. Elockid (Talk) 15:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

04 October 2015

Suspected sockpuppets


81.149.228.79 restored an edit it made before which was reverted as block evasion by Vote... by JoeSperrazza in August. The same pattern of edits appears in the first several lines of the edit history of Talk/Tropical_year/Archive_1. This editor was blocked for block evasion on 9 August 2015 by SpacemanSpiff. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:27, 4 October 2015 (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

information Administrator note Blocked 3 months. Elockid (Talk) 17:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

05 October 2015

Suspected sockpuppets


Behavioral patterns of sockmaster, including:

  • Focus on calendar articles, with misleading and/or incomplete edit summary: [22]
  • Edit warring to add WP:OR:
[23]
[24]
  • Hand-waving on talk page to justify WP:OR & misleading use of refs: [25]
  • Edit warring and angry edit summary: [26]
  • Edit warring, angry edit summary, WP:OR and attempt to use WP:CALC instead of references: [27]

FYI: @Jc3s5h:, @NeilN: JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:01, 5 October 2015 (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

19 October 2015

Suspected sockpuppets



|sock1= |sock2= |sock3= |ip1=87.81.137.181 |ip2= |ip3= |evidence= This of edits reinstate's one of Vote...'s favorite false assertions, that GMT is always the same as UT1. Note also one of the edit summaries: "There is no official distinction between GMT and UT1."This series of edits makes the same argument in the Universal Time article, including the reintroduction of a lower quality source that contradicts up-to-date scholarly sources, Whitaker's Almanac (1977). This source was introduced in April by User:156.61.250.250, who was blocked as a sockpuppet of Vote....In addition 87.81.137.181 is from the greater London area and concentrates on time articles, which are consistent with Vote....

I regard this edit to Village Pump (technical) arguing about the block of Vote... as absolute proof this IP is a sock of Vote....

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

22 October 2015

Suspected sockpuppets


This edit to a Village pump (technical thread) which user:HighInBC identified as having been started by a sock of Vote....

This insulting post to my talk page.

The fact that the IP is in the greater London area, like all of Vote...'s socks. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2015 (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

31 October 2015

Suspected sockpuppets


Abusive (or, at least, uncomplimentary) protected edit request on WT:RD (diff). Geolocates to the same area as Vote X's previous socks. Tevildo (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2015 (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

04 November 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

Standard complaint of "admin abuse" on WP:ANI Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

This report was opened with wrong capitalization by the reporting user, so may be a bit tangled in its processing.

Probably want to add 82.35.241.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to the list too. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also 109.154.44.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 84.9.146.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --David Biddulph (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

10 December 2015

Suspected sockpuppets


This IP has been repeatedly blocked as a sockpuppet of Vote (X) for Change. In this edit Vote... returns to one of his/her favorite topics, the Julian calendar. See, for example, this edit by the same IP. I request an indefinite block of this address. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:40, 10 December 2015 (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

information Administrator note Already blocked by me. ElockidHappy holidays! 17:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20 February 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


In this edit 151.226.185.90 defends this edit from April 2015 which he made using the sock 156.61.250.250. Both IPs are located near London, UK. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Yes, I thought so too. Dbfirs 15:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

22 February 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


Continues the discussion engaged in by the sock 151.226.185.90 at the "Year" talk page and at Administrator noticeboard for incidents. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:03, 22 February 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

16 March 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


This edit (which I reverted and the sock reinstated) renews Vote...'s theme of claiming that GMT has exactly the same meaning as UT1, when that is not the case. Sock cites Whitaker's Almanack which another of Vote...'s sock introduced in April 2015 (albeit a different edition). Sock also misrepresents the source Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac 3rd ed. (2013) p. 14, changing the wording next to the footnote to read "1960 it was renamed UT1 after different versions of Universal Time were created reflecting different methods of calculating it" when that source when in fact the source really says just the opposite: "In the past the term 'Greenwich Mean Time' has been used for both UTC and UT1." Jc3s5h (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional evidence: the sock made this edit to WP:RPP shortly after I requested page protection on "Greenwich Mean Time". I interpret this to mean it is Vote... continuing his usual pattern of wikistalking me. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional IP added due to this edit. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And for the avoidance of doubt: socking is admitted because 86.190.27.232 in his post to the talk page, claims that he added the edits which were actually made by 77.98.244.158 and also signed the post with that IP. Having said that, the first IP is static and the second is dynamic. It looks the same editor editing from two different locations (Newcastle and London - but the latter appears to have been deasigned (the give away being that it geolocates to the IP address server on Cheapside in London)).
Though it is clear that these IPs are socks to each other: looking at the past history of this master, I have a concern that these and the past (temporarily) blocked socks may not be socks of this Master. My reasoning for this is that the Master seems to have access to a multiplicity of IP addresses fom a multiplicity of service providers. This seems unlikely given that ISPs charge big money for internet access. The edit history of most of the IP addresses above seem to have no relationship to history of the claimed Master. As far as I can tell, the evidence trail seems to work by claiming IP(A) is the original master. IP(B) has similarities to IP(A). IP(C) has similarities to IP(B). (repeat and rinse ad nauseum). It seems to have gone beyond IP(Z) and is now into IP(BW).
Vote (X) for Change's edit hstory shows that he exclusively edited Julian calender and Gregorian calender. Early IP edits principally targetted these articles, but by the time we get to IP(G), there is much edit history before an edit is made to one of the above articles whereupon, the SPI charge is made. This pattern continues (and there is evidence that many of the IPs are socks to each other and some are to Vote (X) for Change), though the link to the master is getting weaker by the report. By the time we get to IP(AZ), the pattern has gone completely (three unrelated edits to and entirely unrelated article Greenwich mean time - also some redacted edits where I can infer nothing but they were not to the articles named above).
What I find particularly concerning is that all the SPI cases are made by the same editor, Jc3s5h and no other. More or less a little before IP(AZ) all the way to IP(BW), this report, there is only one clear pattern. All reports are made when an IP just happens to edit an article that Jc3s5h happens to be editing and not agreeably as Jc3s5h alwys thinks he is right and the IP wrong (I make no comment as to the correctness of this belief). The case is that the IP has just happened to edit an article, or one related to it, that happens to have been edited by one of the long list of IPs in the archive (even if they have no relation to any edit by Vote (X) for Change or one of the earlier IPs that can be positivle linked).
I can pick virtually any case in the lower half of the archive and there is no history in common with Vote (X) for Change or any sock that can be positively linked to him. The other evidence almost universally used is that the IP geolocates to London. With a population in excess of 8+1⁄2 million, that is one hell of a stretch. This has all the appearance of some sort of vendetta where Jc3s5h is pursuing any shadow he perceives to be Vote (X) for Change. It also seems to me that the long term abuse case is most likely descended into a phantom zone of its own.
I am also somewhat concerned to note that this page has been protected such that any IP user accused by Jc3s5h is completely unable to defend himself. The irony being that the reason for the page protection is 'persistent sock puppetry'. -Elektrik Fanne (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
STOP PRESS: I have just been looking at a few more reports, and it seems that the evidence of being located in London is being stretched much furhter than that. It is London or anywhere within 60 miles of London (the furthest I found from London geolocates to 60 miles away). The population of this circle must be well over 10 million or well over one fifth of the total population of the UK! Someone is taking the mickey. -Elektrik Fanne (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Elektrik Fanne would like to go through the edit histories of the articles concerned and observe the number of reverts by editors other than myself on the grounds of sockpuppetry, although those editors did not choose to use the SPI mechanism to express their concern. Elektrik Fanne might also review the blocks on the grounds of sockpuppetry issued by various admins who, being admins, did not need to come to SPI before issuing the block. Elektrik Fanne might also review the extensive history provided at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change by various users, myself not included. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)‎[reply]
Eletrik Fanne's concern that the master has access to a multiplicity of IP addresses is explained in this post by Vote.... Vote, at least at that time, didn't own a computer and used various public computers to post. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Vote...'s interest in time, in particular GMT, is established by the short edit history of User:86.163.52.211; in October 2011 that IP made edits to Greenwich Mean Time, Talk:Hebrew calendar, Talk:Coordinated Universal Time/GA1", Determination of the day of the week (to add an algorithm for the Revised Julian Calendar). The editor also made this edit to a section of the "Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard" discussing Vote (X) for Change. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By contrast, later in the history User:86.181.184.224 made one edit to Greenwich mean time that could easily be an isolated good faith edit. That you claim he restored a single point that Vote (X) for Change apparently made does not prove that 86.181.184.224 is Vote (X) for Change - it could easily have been a coincidence (and probably more likely). More evidence is required than that. He also made two reversions, but that is no evidence of socking either. And in this instance, you even offered the London location as evidence, but as I have already established, that just pins the posibilities down to a mere 8+1⁄2 million people (i.e. no evidence at all).
But later on (in fact four years later with a considerable break in between), we have User:86.153.131.100 making edits to Prime meridian (Greenwich), Greenwich mean time and Time ball, which AFAICT have no relationship to Vote (X) for Change or any IP that I can positively link to that master. Indeed all the edits appear either perfectly good faith or reverts. You claimed that this IP address and five others listed in the report all geolocated to London. In reality only two of them did. Regardless of the merits of any individual case, this was clearly a deliberate attempt to falsify the evidence. You subsequently tried to sweep this under the carpet by claiming that geolocate can be in error. Indeed it can, as others and I agree, but where an IP geolocates to Watford, you cannot use the existence of the error to 'prove' that the IP really is in London. It might be, but it could equally easily be in Aylesbury or Chelmsford for exactly the same reason. By the reverse argument, many of the IPs that geolocate to London could equally be elsewhere because of the same error. My attention was specifically drawn to this because another user commented on this same anomaly at the time.
Following an attempt by Vote (X) for Change (overtly using an IP) to get his account unblocked after an absence of 3+1⁄2 years, all goes quiet again until June 2015 with what has to be assumed is a good faith edit. This and all the reports after this date claim that various IP addresses that pop up are Vote (X) for Change because they just happen to edit the same articles whether they make similarly based edits or not, but generally, because they happen to originate from London (or as it turns out anywhere in the country, but he claims it as London anyway). While I accept that many (but certainly not all) of the IPs may (but only may) be socks to each other, there is an astonishing lack of the behavioral evidence that links them to Vote (X) for Change that existed with him or the IPs positively linked prior to October 2011. This heavily suggests that the two groups (if indeed there are two groups) are unlikely to be linked.
I'm sorry, but from an uninvolved viewpoint, it appears that you are heavily abusing the SPI system. If it were not for the repeated falsification of the London based claim, I might have assumed it was unintentional, but that falsification seals it (at least for me) as deliberate.
This report is still unactioned after one week. It should be closed without action for the reasons that I have outlined above (in any case the dynamic IP will have long moved on, and the static is at the other end of the country). Oh I'm forgetting, the geolocate error means that the Newcastle IP must really be in London and cannot possibly be in Edinburgh or Glasgow (or even possibly - Newcastle). -Elektrik Fanne (talk) 13:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're statement that the report is unactioned is not really true. The more active of the two IPs, 77.98.244.158 was blocked by Favonian as a sock of Vote... at 10:19, 20 March 2016. I don't know your background, but perhaps greater subject matter expertise would help you perceive repetition of editing themes. I do take care to make sure that I don't come to this SPI page unless the edits not only come from the greater London area (judged by looking at the geolocate maps; I am not especially familiar with London suburbs, and allowing a similar distance for the various location reports I am used to seeing for my own IP, which often place me in any of 4 states). I also see if the edits are repeating the same points, or seeking to create confusion about the same points, that this editor is fond of. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not unreasonable to assume that Vote (X) for Change is not the only person in the world holding any views that he does, so plain repetition of material just doesn't cut the mustard. Your lack of knowledge of London suburbs is a very poor excuse. You are including editors who are in towns not even related to London (and in 77.98.244.158's case not even vaguely near) . --Elektrik Fanne 18:36, 23 March 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

27 March 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


Suspicious behaviour on Reference Desks (diff, diff and at WP:UAA (diff). See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change for LTA page. Tevildo (talk) 15:58, 27 March 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

11 April 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Created the usual attack pages with overly long titles. Passengerpigeon (talk) 11:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

  • @Favonian: I thought Willy on Wheels disappeared a long time ago. I reported these as socks of Vote X for Change because I posted a note about this on Materialscientist's talk page after seeing similar abuse occur, and a talk page watcher said it seemed like Vote X for Change was the sockmaster. Passengerpigeon (talk) 07:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

14 April 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Making the usual "Who is Vote X" posts on WP:ANI. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:12, 14 April 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

30 May 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Same M.O. that we've been dealing with for a very long time. Please see the LTA page:[30]   Aloha27  talk  01:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Known IP range, previous block earlier this month. Blocked again as long-term IP. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


30 May 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/188.221.78.19   Aloha27  talk  16:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

09 June 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Same interest, style and known range. LTA is here Quack?   Aloha27  talk  11:32, 9 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

18 June 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Same interest, style and known range. See WP:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change. Mojoworker (talk) 17:00, 18 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

28 August 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


This nonsensical edit to a calendar-related article contains a wiki link to a talk page section heavily edited by 156.61.250.250, an IP which is a known sock of Vote... and currently blocked for that reason. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC) Jc3s5h (talk) 23:44, 28 August 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


30 August 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


This edit reinstates an edit by 94.175.0.86, which was blocked yesterday as a sock of Vote.... Jc3s5h (talk) 17:44, 30 August 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

13 September 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


In this edit 77.103.33.180 uses a deceptive edit summary, "(Fix cite)", and makes a major editorial change, claiming that Greece has not adopted the Gregorian calendar as its civil calendar. Creating confusion about the Gregorian calendar vs. the Revised Julian calendar is one of Vote...'s typical activities. The edit is one in a series of edits ([31], [32], [33]) which defies the consensus on the talk page. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:58, 13 September 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

25 September 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


These edits denigrate UTC and exaggerate the importance of GMT, a familiar theme for Vote.... For example, this portion of the edit (strikeout showing removal, underline showing additions): "is an atomic timescale that approximates UT1. It is the international standard on which civil time is based." Edit also shows propensity to change to British spelling even when an organization's official name uses American spelling "Earth Orientation Center Centre". This edit exhibits Vote...'s familiarity with Wikipedia's dispute resolution fora and propensity to wikistalk me.

In this page protection action KrakatoaKatie protected Coordinated Universal Time 51 minutes after an edit by 79.79.52.55 for "Persistent sock puppetry, block evasion". Jc3s5h (talk) 19:03, 25 September 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

23 October 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Quacks loudly IMO   Aloha27  talk  19:10, 23 October 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

06 November 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


Reinstating a claim by Vote's socks that GMT is UT1. Editor located in southeast England. All of editors edits are about calendars. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC) Jc3s5h (talk) 15:15, 6 November 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

17 November 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


Repeats argument that ordinary clocks and watches show mean solar time and most countries don't use UTC. Inserts irrelevant argument about GMT. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:58, 17 November 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

02 December 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


Reiterates false claim that GMT is the basis of civil time in most of the world. Exclusively edits a time & calendar related topic, in this case, Tropical year. Located in southern England. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC) Jc3s5h (talk) 19:47, 2 December 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

Blocked; article semi-protected for another year. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

04 December 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

This revert is the same as this revert, the latter being the removal of edits by a (now) blocked IP of Vote X. Primefac (talk) 21:17, 4 December 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


05 December 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


Calls administrator who semi-protected a page a "goon". Account only used to edit the time-related talk page Talk:Solar time and to attack an administrator at ANI. Account previously blocked in October for block evasion. Account located in southeastern England. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:39, 5 December 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

10 December 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Known IP range and interest in Gregorian calendar article.

Quacks IMO.   Aloha27  talk  11:21, 10 December 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

12 January 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


Argued about describing previous edits as edits by a banned user, in a calendar-related article talk page. Located in southwest England. Three month block for sockpuppetry expired two about six weeks ago. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC) corrected 17:34 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

15 January 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


Edited a calendar-related article; previously blocked in September for three months as a sockpuppet of Vote (X) for Change. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC) Jc3s5h (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2017 (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

17 January 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Restores edits made by User:81.151.101.181 which was blocked at 11:49, 17 January 2017 as a sock of Vote... Also reported at WP:RPP. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

79.73.134.197 restored a contribution by 94.175.0.86 which is also currently blocked as a sock of Vote... Jc3s5h (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I've blocked 79.73.134.197 for disruption, but only for 24 hours. Didn't realize the connection to Vote X until they posted some stuff on their talk page. Feel free to extend to indeff if connected. Primefac (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

01 February 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

These IPs were used to evade both a ban and 3RR. The last three IPs were used to evade 3RR (diff #1, diff #2, diff #3, diff #4). The other IP's diff is here (a.k.a. "diff #0" in this SPI). The edit summaries are ironic and show the IPs are connected and are doing WP:BRRR. The edit summaries associated with diffs 3 and 4, that were reverts of Favonian's fight against the socks, both say that Favonian is "involved up to his neck", confirming IPs 3 and 4 are sockpuppets of Vote (X) for Change. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 15:19, 1 February 2017 (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

04 February 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Quack. Reverted...   Aloha27  talk  15:15, 4 February 2017 (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

10 February 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


Repeats a favorite assertion of Vote... that analog watches and clocks show mean solar time or GMT while clocks that receive time from atomic clocks display UTC: " A display of standard time may be based on either mean solar time, as shown by clocks and watches generally, or Coordinated Universal Time, which is displayed by radio-controlled clocks." When deciding what to do consider that IP 86.128.234.57 has been making edits to the article since February 1. IP is located in southeast England. IP misleadingly attributes edit to David Biddulph when Mr. Biddulph's edit was merely removal of obvious vandalism. Wikiblame tool indicates edit was acutally first made by 213.107.114.23, another southeast England IP.

Consider semi-protecting the article due to Vote...'s demonstrated determination to revisit articles for many years.Jc3s5h (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC) Jc3s5h (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2017 (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

12 February 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


Sock refers in edit summary to wikiblame tool which I mentioned at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vote (X) for Change/Archive#10 February 2017. Since the edit compares me to a certain politician, I consider this an intolerable insult and request RevisionDelete. Also request temporary semi-protection of Talk:Time zone. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC) Jc3s5h (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2017 (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

16 February 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


Repeats an edit by editor that was blocked by User:NeilN 2 days ago for same behavior. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:21, 16 February 2017 (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

20 February 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Quack.   Aloha27  talk  13:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Has already been blocked once, but needs blocking again. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


20 February 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


Restores an edit made by 86.155.6.159 and that IP was blocked by NeilN. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2017 (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

Blocked, closing. GABgab 19:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

26 February 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


Long addition of material similar to what was added by another sock to Time zone, which was reverted and that article semi-protected. Edit is less than a month after expiration of 3 month block. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC) Jc3s5h (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2017 (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

07 March 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


Edits to Time from NPL and Talk:Time from NPL arguing that the time transmitted by NPL time signals is not the legal time in the UK. Previously blocked 3 times in 2016, once for "long term abuse" and twice as a sock of Vote... Jc3s5h (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2017 (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


09 March 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


Some of Vote's favorite themes. [34] and [35] imposition of British English against MOS:ENGVAR. Promoting use of GMT rather than time scales that are supported by the scientific community. This time the IP geolocates to eastern Ireland. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2017 (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

Blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


09 March 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


[36] [37] [38] restores edits by Special:Contributions/52.169.116.143 who was blocked as a sock of Vote... earlier this morning. Edit comments reveal familiarity with Vote...'s activities. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2017 (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

14 March 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


Repeatedly inserts editors point of view against consensus [39] [40] [41]. Changes claim that Gregorian calendar is designed to put vernal equinox on March 21 to March 20 and changes page numbers in citation from pages that support the claim to a page unrelated to the claim. Promotes term "mean tropical year" over "tropical year", a topic Vote... has argued about extensively for years. Editor located in southeast England. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2017 (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

16 March 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


Repeats talk page heading used by 86.136.177.206, who was blocked as a sock of Vote, at Talk:Leap year, which was just semi-protected due to persistent sockpuppetry. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2017 (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

23 March 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


Attempts to revive a discussion involving the sock User:156.61.250.250. Then admits creating draft article Draft:Revised Gregorian calendar. While Vote... hasn't used the address 86.128.233.163 for a few days I suggest deleting the draft article. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2017 (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

28 March 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


Repeats Vote's arguments about mean time vs. UTC. This IP was blocked on March 9 for 31 hours as a sock of Vote. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2017 (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


29 March 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


Restores and extends edits by 52.169.116.143; that IP was blocked yesterday by NeilN for block evasion. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2017 (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

04 April 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


This series of edits by 86.148.118.153 adds to Daylight saving time substantially the same information Vote... added to Coordinated Universal Time, which lead to a three month block of 52.169.116.143 and semi-protection of "Coordinated Universal Time". Jc3s5h (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2017 (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

14 April 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

POV pushing at Hebrew calendar just after 3 months of semi-protection ended. The POV pushed is that the 8th month of the Jewish year is called "Marcheshvan", not "Cheshvan", and has been pushed since 2011 by Vote (X) IPs, both at the article and at the talk page. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change and Talk:Hebrew calendar/Archive 5 for more information. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 20:07, 14 April 2017 (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


15 April 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Ban evasion. This IP has been used in the past.   Aloha27  talk  16:20, 15 April 2017 (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


16 April 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


Restores edits for which this IP was blocked as a sock of Vote... by NeilN. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2017 (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

19 April 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


Repeats edits by User:86.148.118.153 who was blocked by NeilN on April 4 as a sock of Vote... Jc3s5h (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC) Jc3s5h (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2017 (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

27 April 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Quacks loudly IMO   Aloha27  talk  00:30, 27 April 2017 (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

29 April 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Known range and interest. Quack?   Aloha27  talk  17:27, 29 April 2017 (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

13 May 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adoption_of_the_Gregorian_calendar&type=revision&diff=780162291&oldid=779068493 Reintroduces claim that Greece adopted the Reformed Julian Calendar rather than the Gregorian Calendar for civil purposes. See discussion from 2016 at Talk:Adoption of the Gregorian calendar/Archive 1#Claims about Greece. Also, IP located in southern UK. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2017 (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

26 May 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


Essentially restores this edit by 86.128.234.57 who was blocked by Favonian as a sock of Vote... in February. Jc3s5h (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2017 (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

Blocked and semiprotected. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

09 July 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Combative post about one of vote's persistent themes, that supposedly GMT can't be distinguished from UTC when setting an ordinary consumer-grade watch or clock. Comment by 86.159.235.7 and thread makes it obvious this is the same editor as 86.159.235.7. Both IPs located in southern England. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As of 15:03 July 10, 2017 82.12.63.55 has continued the argument and 86.159.235.7 has been blocked by Future Perfect at Sunrise. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Based on recent edits, I think 5.150.93.133, an IP from London Grid For Learning Trust, may also be a Vote (X) for Change sock. See User talk:5.150.92.19, another London Grid For Learning Trust IP currently blocked as a Vote (X) for Change sock. Mojoworker (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


11 July 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Unhats a thread that was hatted by Dbfirs due to sock puppetry. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, using address 82.43.223.204

Comments by other users

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

86.159.237.243 edited the same two articles as sock 5.150.93.133, which was blocked in yesterday's SPI. Mojoworker (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • @Mojoworker: please don't add to closed cases. This user jumps IPs frequently; they had already started using another one (listed above and blocked) before you reported. Blocking the stale IP at this point would not be productive, it's unlikely they'll land on that particular one again. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

30 July 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


Edits reintroduces Vote...'s attempt to create confusion about UTC vs. GMT. Similar to this edit by 81.147.142.137 which was blocked as a sock of Vote... by Favonian on 1 July 2017. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2017 (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

12 August 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Wasn't sure where this needed reporting, but this seems appropriate. See [42]. Editor blocked per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive942#Ip came back from the dead suspected to be the same editor, similar pattern to that described at the LTA page and discussing topics editor is known to be interested in. Kahastok talk 17:16, 12 August 2017 (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

13 August 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


Repeats one of her favorite false claims, that only countries that use the term Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) in their legislation actually base their time on UTC. Editor located in southern England. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:15, 13 August 2017 (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


13 August 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Restores content of previous sock. Fairly obvious but possibly stale. Kahastok talk 15:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, didn't notice he's already blocked. Please feel free to close. Kahastok talk 15:52, 13 August 2017 (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

13 August 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


Reinstates the edit for which puppet 62.31.126.158 was blocked earlier today. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2017 (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

19 August 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


Editor located in southern England edits Julian calendar to add unsourced information about Revised Gregorian calendar and some Germanic protestant calendar, and makes up name "Improved calendar" for the latter. After edit is reverted, adds a couple of sources, the first of which is hard to access. Information from the second is used selectively and misleadingly. Yes, it appears some Protestants had their own calendar starting in 1700, but editor conveniently neglects to mention it was abandoned in favor of Gregorian in 1778. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, editor was blocked as a sock of Vote... by Future Perfect at Sunrise on 15 August for 31 hours. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2017 (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

27 September 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Known range and interest   Aloha27  talk  12:48, 27 September 2017 (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

11 October 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Quack. Patient Zerotalk 13:01, 11 October 2017 (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

20 October 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


Reintroduces false concept that UTC is not the world-wide basis of civil time. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2017 (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

25 October 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


IP from southern England changes a word to British spelling even though all the other country-sensitive words are American, then reverts the national variety of English template on the talk page, then started a talk page thread about it. I'd be happy to discuss the proper variety of English with a sincere editor, but what I perceive is QUACK.

In September the editor added material to Julian calendar which was promptly reverted, then restored by 217.34.36.106 (with reference to a Vote... attack in the edit summary_; 217.34.36.106 was promptly blocked by Favonian as a sock of Vote... Jc3s5h (talk) 15:57, 25 October 2017 (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

18 December 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


Reintroduces material added by the Vote... sock 156.61.250.250. Note, for example, use of the source Roland Kent, London 1938. Deceptive edit summary: no discernible vandalism being reverted. Topic is calendars. Editor is in England. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2017 (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

19 December 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


Reinstates ([43] [44] [45] [46] [47]) by 62.30.14.156 who was just blocked by NeilN as a sock of Vote...Jc3s5h (talk) 12:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC) Jc3s5h (talk) 12:07, 19 December 2017 (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

10 January 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


Edits today concentrate on time and calendar topics, typical of Vote.... One edit introduces confusion by conflating audio time signals carried by the same broadcast radio stations that provide news and music with radio stations specifically designed to provide time information, such as WWV. The IP has previously been blocked as a sock of Vote.... Jc3s5h (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2018 (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

16 January 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


Sporadically used username, only shows up to answer questions at Ref Desk, importantly usually shortly after a VxFC IP address has been blocked and ref desks have been protected against IP editing. Answers questions in the same manner as VxFC usually does, furthermore, has a tell-tale give-away as other VxFC socks, which is to restore deleted posts, as done here [48]. Additionally, this user shows a particular interest in time, which is a VxFC interest as well. I'm not 100% convinced this is VxFC behaviorally, so I am asking for a checkuser to look at underlying IP addresses and user agents and the like for this user name, and see if the data can be compared to known VxFC data (see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change for a large, but by no means complete, list of known VxFC IP addresses to check data against. Geolocation and/or ISP usually helps a LOT in narrowing down cases like this. --Jayron32 17:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC) Jayron32 17:25, 16 January 2018 (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

Red X Unrelated to Vote (X) for Change but  Confirmed to Blooteuth (talk · contribs · count).  Blocked and tagged. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. If so, can the closing clerk please move this specific report to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cuddlyable3? Thanks! --Jayron32 18:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

19 January 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

Quack? Known range and interests   Aloha27  talk  13:51, 19 January 2018 (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

This case is being reviewed by Sir Sputnik 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.


22 January 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


Introduces claim that countries that explicitly mention UTC in their laws keep time differently than those which do not mention it. Editor located in England. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

  • Probably stale by now. When she's on an IPv6 address it usually only last a few minutes, if that; she was editing using a different IPv6 address on the Ref Desks after she was using this one, meaning that she's not using it anymore, making a block likely useless at this point. Given how rarely IPv6 addresses get assigned dynamically to the same user (its probably akin to winning the lottery), there's not much else to do here. If you want to catalogue these, use the LTA page instead, but unless there's multiple edits from the same IP address over the course of a substantial amount of time, then SPI probably doesn't react fast enough anyways. If she's attacking the page with multiple IPs, we can try protection I suppose. --Jayron32 18:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Closing as per Jayron32. GABgab 21:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

25 January 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


Edits introducing non-standard description of tropical year and seasons based on 2006 Sky & Telescope article which in turn refers to a 1937 Maine almanac. Claims astronomers use Greenwich Mean Time to refer to UT1 when audience is media and the general public. Editor is in Ireland. Other IP edits have been reverted recently in this article as socks of Vote.... Jc3s5h (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2018 (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

11 May 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

Known interest and style.   Aloha27  talk  13:59, 11 May 2018 (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

22 May 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

Known range and interests   Aloha27  talk  15:16, 22 May 2018 (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

23 May 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


Editor from southern England argues lead is incorrect using source substantially less reliable than those cited in the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2018 (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

13 June 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

Known interests, style and location.   Aloha27  talk  17:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Additional evidence: in this edit IP follows typical pattern of creating confusion among Gregorian, Julian, and Revised Julian calendars by substituting "improved" for "Gregorian". Jc3s5h (talk) 14:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

04 July 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

WP:DUCK. (see special:diff/848809225, restoring Special:diff/848509247 with an identical edit summary) Iffy★Chat -- 13:52, 4 July 2018 (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


05 July 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


Author discussing dates, one of Vote...'s favorite topics, using an IP previously blocked as a sock of Vote...[49] [50] [51]. Restores edit by User:86.132.186.246, said IP having been blocked for "long term abuse". Jc3s5h (talk) 16:07, 5 July 2018 (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

17 August 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

Known range and interests.   Aloha27  talk  11:41, 17 August 2018 (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

06 October 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

It's been a while since I've filed an SPI so let me know if more evidence is needed. The geolocation is to London Borough of Camden which is in north west London and the IP belongs to TalkTalk an ISP Vote X uses per the LTA. This editor has been hanging out in the Reference desk, a favourite haunt of Vote X. I first noticed their reference to intercalation as this and other time stuff seem to be another favourite topic of Vote X although the actual dispute here seems to be over the location of a sermon [52]. I got even more suspicious when they brought up FPaS [53] as Vote X often does. The final confirmation came when another IP pointed out that Vote X had raised the exact issue before Talk:Islamic calendar/Archive 5#Request for comment: Should the caption of the picture of the inside of a mosque mention a sermon which was delivered outdoors? [54] (IP is blocked as a Vote X sock). Per that and this commons discussion Commons:File talk:Maome.jpg#Claim of historical misattribution of this picture to the prophet it seems that this Islamic calendar/Muhammad/sermon location caption issue is another of Vote X's favourite haunts. there's no mention in the LTA & only one case in the archive I assume because many of them have been blocked without an SPI. Revert/deny is somewhat difficult here because they're engaging in multiple places including outside the RD and of course Vote X tends to revert reversions. (They did once already.) Nil Einne (talk) 07:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Its been a long time for me commenting on an SPI case with evidence (hope I am placing this in the right spot). This IP after having a discussion at the Reference Desk [55] filed an edit request at Talk:Islamic calendar asking to add "The image is misleading, the sermon was in fact delivered outdoors." at the end of the caption to the image Nil Einne mentioned. In the edit request I found it odd an IP would mention an RfC from July 31, 2017. Another user mentioned this IP is an alleged sock of Vote (X) for Change so I closed out the edit request stating it required a consensus.[56] I didn't learn of the full details of the actual sockpupperty at work until I dug deeper after closing out the request. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 14:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


07 October 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

I hate doing these but as per the instructions from WP:LTA/VXFC I must. IP 78.145.21.69 was reported as a sockpuppet of this user yesterday and I added evidence to this case. [57] which was closed with the IP banned.

Now I get 78.146.208.133 leaving another message on my talk page in regards to comments made about them from 2008-present despite this being the IP's only edit. He clearly calls out Baseball Bugs who left a comment about the recently blocked IP being a sock in regards to an edit request I closed yesterday at the talk page of Islamic calendar. This IP also mentions user Nil Einne who filed the SPI report on the the IP address that was blocked yesterday as well. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 11:50, 7 October 2018 (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

  • Blocked! Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, Alucard 16, but you are now experiencing another of VXFC's characteristic traits: thinking that you are their new best friend. Recommend WP:DENY.
As CheckUsers will not publicly link IPs to accounts, and the case is quite clear anyway, I take the liberty of closing it. Favonian (talk) 11:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay well he can have the honor of knowing he's the first person where I used Twinkle to file an SPI report instead of doing it manually . Thanks Favonian for the tip I didn't know that about IPs I'll remember not to check the box next time for a CheckUser request. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 12:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

17 October 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

One hit wonder. Known range and interests.  Looks like a duck to me   Aloha27  talk  17:56, 17 October 2018 (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

  • Let's wait for a second edit. This one contained vandalism rather than POV-pushing, which is NOT VXFC's modus operandi. I would say that, based on this one edit, this is NOT a behavioral match. If there never is a second edit, we don't have to block. If there is, it will give us more information. --Jayron32 18:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

15 April 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

Looks like VXFC has access to a new ISP (EE Limited). Mojoworker (talk) 21:24, 15 April 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

06 May 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

Known range and interests.   Aloha27  talk  12:41, 6 May 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


07 May 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

Known range, interests and style.   Aloha27  talk  12:02, 7 May 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


07 May 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

I'm not clairvoyant but I have an astute command of the obvious.   Aloha27  talk  19:24, 7 May 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

04 June 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

Known range, interests and style.   Aloha27  talk  11:05, 4 June 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

08 June 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

Southeast England IP editing time-related article, insisting that GMT is exactly equal to UT1, and citing National Physical Laboratory, all characteristics of Vote.... Most other time and calendar article that Vote... infests have been protected, so it has found a new outlet. [58] [59] [60] Jc3s5h (talk) 14:10, 8 June 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

18 July 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

Overwhelming evidence IMO.   Aloha27  talk  18:29, 18 July 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

22 September 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

Overwhelming evidence IMO.   Aloha27  talk  10:19, 22 September 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

Feeling magnanimous, I extended the block to the range 92.19.169.0/24 (one of this person's habitual haunts) for a year. Favonian (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13 December 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

Ban evasion. Known interests, range and style.   Aloha27  talk  12:31, 13 December 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

20 January 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Based on their contributions to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Workshop and Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Workshop. Note the IP 65.41.81.89 (who has also contributed there) is not suspected to be related. Requesting CU to confirm and see if there are others. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 20 January 2020 (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

13 August 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Edit makes false claims about what a source contains. This is a classic edit pattern of Vote.... Also, the editor is from southeast England and is editing on calendar topics, as shown by all six edits between 11:20, 12 August 2020 UTC and 12:06, 13 August 2020 UTC in the contribution history. The misrepresented source can be found at archive.org, see bottom of the article in question, Conversion between Julian and Gregorian calendars. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Is it too difficult to specify exactly what words are being complained about? 92.19.174.153 (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


10 October 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

This is either Vote (X) for Change (see userpage and username) or someone trolling us. Three out of four edits have been vandalism. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Clerk note: There's not enough behavioral evidence here to block as a sock. If they really are a troll, that will become obvious soon enough and they'll end up getting blocked for vandalism, not here, whatever. Closing. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

28 November 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

This user matches the username pattern and all edits are vandalism. This LTA has a wide range of behavior so I can't rule out it being VXfC. Jasper Deng (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2020 (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

13 December 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Once again, vandalizing the User talk:Jimbo Wales, and also the IP address 194.53.187.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). NASCARfan0548 ↗ 15:41, 13 December 2020 (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

/25 range blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, as nothing more needs to be done. Favonian (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

29 June 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Has done a chain of edits across a number of IPs. Makes no effort to conceal they are the same editor on another IP, continues same arguments and discussions on same pages as previously blocked IP Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:57, 29 June 2021 (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

07 July 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

User:Favonian reverted an edit belived to be Vote (X) for Change at 18:56, 3 July 2021 (Special:Diff/1031803874). An IP (the one being reported) had now made reference to that edit at Talk:Wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle (Special:Diff/1032419911) claiming to be another user, though I am unconvinced. Geolocation puts both IPs in London. Also note that Oprah with Meghan and Harry (and its talk) have similar edits (most recently Special:Diff/1029672883 and Special:Diff/1031061962 repsectively) as well as Wedding of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles and its talk page (Special:Diff/1032104189 and Special:Diff/1032267819) made by IPs positivly identified as Vote (X) for Change.
SSSB (talk) 09:59, 7 July 2021 (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

Blocked, thanks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

31 October 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Quack.   Aloha27  talk  16:50, 31 October 2021 (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

21 November 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Location, style and interest. Looks like a duck to me.   Aloha27  talk  16:43, 21 November 2021 (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

21 March 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Edits to a habitual topic for this sockmaster, calendars. In this episode, concentrated on Roman Calendar Jc3s5h (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2022 (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

25 March 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Restored edit which was reverted by Favonian on 21 March and who referenced WP:LTA/VXFC in edit summary. Typical topic for VXFC and IP is located in England, the usual location for VXFC. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

England is a big country. The idea that all of the edits from there come from one person is absurd. 89.240.112.241 (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

21 January 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Sock created after 2.97.22.58 blocked for three months by Wldr. Quacks loudly IMO.   Aloha27  talk  18:13, 21 January 2023 (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

25 January 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Known range and interests. Duck, IMO. EIA with confirmed sock https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=87.81.230.195&users=90.212.208.82   Aloha27  talk  14:04, 25 January 2023 (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

  • This seems to be "The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195", a legitimate long-term Refdesk contributor. They share similar geolocations and IP ranges with VXfC but their contribution pattern is quite different. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with FPAS above. The only similarity to VXFC is the geolocation and the use of the refdesk. We have many people from the same geographic location as VXFC that comment on the ref desks, but are not her. I'm not sure if this is "The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195" (they usually sign all of their posts as such), but I am quite sure this is not VXFC. WP:DUCK doesn't work on this one; the writing style and other tells don't match at all. --Jayron32 19:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

25 January 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Brand new IP, editing same page as User:2.97.22.58 who was blocked four days ago by User:Widr for three months.   Aloha27  talk  15:23, 25 January 2023 (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

15 May 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Known range/interests. I may be wrong, but not all the time.   Aloha27  talk  11:15, 15 May 2023 (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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Vote_(X)_for_Change/Archive&oldid=1179152348"