Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SirIsaacBrock/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


SirIsaacBrock

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

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

Report date June 20 2009, 02:17 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Hans Adler

Green Squares caused significant disruption in the area of fighting dogs in Roman Britain. The main problem seems to have been assumptions of bad faith and complete inability to accept the opinions of more knowledgeable editors. See WT:CGR#Eyes needed: "Gratius Falsius" and the "Procurator Cynegii" in Roman Britain for details, if needed. Through this behaviour he has drawn the attention of User:Hipocrite on himself, who realised that Green Squares is an obvious reincarnation of SirIsaacBrock. [1] [2] He has now admitted this. [3][4] Afterwards he attacked Hipocrite. [5]

There is a large number of socks in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of SirIsaacBrock and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of SirIsaacBrock, with activity from May 2005 till May 2008. I have listed three more that were known to be related to each other, but are in fact also obvious SirIsaacBrock socks, filling a gap of 2 months in the history. (See the collapsed table in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of SirIsaacBrock.) The Green Squares account was created 1 May 2008 at 01:51, 6 minutes after the previous account (Chessy999) made its last edit, in which it denied the connection with SirIsaacBrock. [6] It started editing immediately. [7]

Just to have it in a convenient location, here is a direct link to an old ANI section on the user that is incomplete in the archive. [8] Another ANI thread. [9]

Given that this user has held four accounts simultaneously in July 2005, I am tentatively asking for a checkuser check to make sure this is currently the only account.

Hans Adler 02:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
  • Hi, I am a sock puppet, I agree. My account was blocked several years ago. I am a good editor that has written hundreds if not a thousand articles and I have started and sorted many categories. I would ask that based on my strong record that I be reinstated at Wikipedia. Thank you. Green Squares (talk) 11:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
  • There has to be a solution to get SIB back to edit the encyclopedia in a positive way as opposed to this neverending cycle. I never would have noticed this incarnation if he hadn't reverted my smerge of a BLP violation which is about to get smerged in AFD. Perhaps a topic ban from all articles related to animal combat/attacks, and a 0rr restriction? Hipocrite (talk) 11:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hi, Hipocrite, I am the original author of the article, Ben Nyaumbe it is a well written and cited article that meets the criteria for inclusion for Notability Results 1 - 100 of about 75,200 for "Ben Nyaumbe". (0.70 seconds). In addition, there is a category created for this type of article Category:Animal attack victims. Thanks. Green Squares (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for providing a good demonstration that your assertions of being an asset to Wikipedia can't be taken at face value. But it doesn't belong here since this is not the place to discuss whether you should continue to be banned. Here we are only dealing with your sockpuppetry. Hans Adler 15:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Adler, your bias against me is pouring through every sentence you have typed. Perhaps it would be best to recuse yourself from the proceeding. All of these articles you are having so much fun editing were originally started and written by me, Pugnaces Britanniae, Canes pugnaces and Procurator Cynegii, Thanks. Green Squares (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by Hans Adler 02:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  •  Clerk declined: No evidence suggests that there is an active account aside from Green Squares. While normally socks of blocked users are reblocked immediately upon admission or confirmation, that isn't always the wisest course of action if the sock is editing productively and wishes to continue doing so. Perhaps a request at WP:AN, coupled with an administrator mentor and a supervised editing parole, would be enough to convince folks that Green Squares ought to be allowed to continue editing. Nathan T 13:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

 Clerk note: Per Nathan; no blocks are pending on this case. Please start a discussion on one of the admin boards such as ANI. — Jake Wartenberg 21:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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


13 April 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


JunoBeach has edited a number of unrelated articles that SirIsaacBrock and his sock User:Green Squares edited. I ran across this editor today at Dogs of Roman Britain where the editor was reinserting material[10] that was added in 2009 by Green Squares dealing with an alleged Pugnaces Britanniae breed of dogs.[11] and [12] The Intersec contribs tool shows 25 article/template intersects with Green Squares [13], 23 with the puppetmaster[14] and 2 with a minor puppet[15] and 2 more with another minor puppet[16]. In each of these cases they are unrelated and the minor puppet made few edits. It's pretty much WP:DUCK but I am requesting a check for sleepers. Dougweller (talk) 13:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

For some background on this editor, see the following:

He was indeffed at some point, then was allowed to return by the ban appeals subcommittee, but subject to a topic ban from fighting dogs. Somehow he managed to believe the topic ban was temporary when that was not the case and he had only been told that it could be revisited on his request. This misunderstanding resulted in a one-month block for what I believe was his last legal account, User:WritersCramp, and he 'retired' under that account. Hans Adler 16:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

25 June 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Blockhouse321 is the latest in a long line of socks of this individual who's edits are focused on, but not restricted to, all forms of blood sports (particularly baiting and dog fighting and dog breeds bred for fighting), Canadian military history, various military materiel topics and snipers/sniping, chess (with a particular fascination with Bobby Fischer) and Nazi history & culture. Recently two accounts have been linked to IQ125 (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of IQ125), but I believe this goes back much further than that. Blockhouse321 recommenced editing (after a 12.5 year break) the day after TFSA was blocked.

Some of the most telling article comparisons from the user compare report and interaction analyser [17] include: Badger-baiting [18], Bibliography of Adolf Hitler [19], Bibliography of Bobby Fischer [20], Blue Paul Terrier [21], Bobby Fischer [22], Bull and terrier [23], Bully Kutta [24], Dog-baiting [25], Dog fighting [26], Featherston Drive Public School [27], Hockley in the Hole [28], Human-baiting [29], Laugardælir [30], Lion-baiting [31], List of Antarctic expeditions [32], List of conflicts in Canada [33], List of dog fighting breeds [34], Muskellunge [35], Nazi eugenics [36], Old English Bulldog [37], Rat-baiting [38], Timeline of the War of 1812 [39] and United States Marine Raider stiletto [40].

Aside from various sock blocks, there remains in force at least two extant TBANs for this editor:

  1. "from any article relating to fighting dogs and/or attack dogs and/or the associated dog breeds, broadly defined"
  2. "from terriers, dog fighting, and breed-specific legislation, broadly construed"

Blockhouse321 has flouted this repeatedly: [41][42][43][44][45].

They all predominantly edit at similar times of the day and they have another particularly telling idiosyncrasy in common, I would prefer they not learn it so they can be detected in the future but I am happy to email it to any admin.

They have previously adopted very similar formats for their user pages in different guises: SirIsaacBrock Green Squares & IQ125.

Blockhouse321 has been informed of this SPI [46].

Cavalryman (talk) 03:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC). Drastically trimmed per request. Cavalryman (talk) 05:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I have just added Discovered Check (talk · contribs) who's behaviour and few edits are consistent with those of this user. Further, this account was registered [47] a little over an hour after Blockhouse321 removed the SPI notice from their TP [48]. Cavalryman (talk) 01:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]
I have just just removed a dozen of the less significant older suspected socks from the above list in the hopes of simplifying this investigation, I don't think their removal should detract from the case but am very happy to restore them. Cavalryman (talk) 06:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

GeneralNotability, I am unsure where I am supposed to respond, please correct me if I am responding in the wrong section. Many thanks for pointing me to that essay, it is a great guide. I am very happy to removed all of the old and blocked users, I have only retained them for the user compare report but now I have added the interaction analyser links I suppose they’re redundant.

Yes, I believe IQ125 et al is in fact SirIsaacBrock, originally I filed this under IQ125 [49] then merged it here to demonstrate consistent editing in the same topic areas (and articles) for over 15 years without any significant breaks in time. Further, the IQ125 account was created [50] three days after the last confirmed SIB sock, JunoBeach, was blocked [51]. Re WritersCramp, they have previously admitted to being a sock of SirIsaacBrock et al.

I believe the most compelling evidence is the consistent editing of the same articles, very disparate and frequently obscure and within the topic areas described in the first paragraph above (also described by Doug Weller twelve years ago [52]), shown in the interaction analysis links by article in the second paragraph above. Some specific diffs for Blockhouse321:

Some diffs for Discovered Check:

Please let me know if you require more (or less) evidence and if you want me to further cull the suspected list down to the last few. If linked I will look to create a WP:LONGTERM report. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 05:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Bbb23, understood, I will trim it down. Cavalryman (talk) 10:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]
@Cavalryman Also, it would be good if you could mark up all accounts of interest with {{checkuser}}; there's various bits of software which take advantage of that to automate processing. It's more convenient for humans too. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, thanks. Apologies for not starting the rewrite sooner, I have been indisposed in real life. I hope to get it done in a couple of days. Regards, Cavalryman (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]
@RoySmith:, I am not very familiar with the SPI process, would it be easier for those here if I culled some of the more minor socks from the list above? Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 01:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]
@RoySmith: many thanks for taking on this case and my sincere apologies if I unduly created extra work for you either by merging the cases or by the length and complexity of the filing. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to assist. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]
@Cavalryman I think everything is taken care of from your end. Don't sweat the case merge thing, it's not a big deal. It is amazing this guy's been doing this for 16 years. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: well thanks again. It’s funny, I have been aware for some time that SIB had been prolific in the bloodsport topic area, and for some reason thought it quirky that the topic area attracted sockpuppeteers. Only after filing the IQ125 case did I make the mental leap. There are a couple of other accounts I am keeping an eye on now also. Thanks also to GeneralNotability steering me to cut the case down. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 10:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

@Cavalryman: There is a reason why this has been sitting for so long. It's mess. You're mixing up two different SPIs. You're listing accounts as confirmed, regardless of who they're confirmed to, which are not. I can't follow it and don't want to. I'm afraid you're going to have to trim it way down, or it will be closed. Also, do not create subsections that don't exist in the original structure.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cavalryman, let's start over. You still have a lot of blocked accounts in this list, most of which are a decade+ old, and I'm unclear why you're mixing IQ125 in (they're believed to be a separate sockmaster - are you saying you think they're actually SirIsaacBrock?). Please give us specific reasons, preferably supported by paired diffs (one from a known sock and one from an account you're reporting, you can give more than two diffs for each point of comparison if needed) showing how the unblocked accounts are behaving like known SirIsaacBrock socks. Forget about WritersCramp (over a year stale) and Battlefield (hasn't edited since 2006), just focus on Blockhouse and Discovered Check. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (User:Blablubbs/How_to_file_a_good_SPI may be a useful read if you have any questions) GeneralNotability (talk) 00:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, this was a rathole, but an interesting one that gave me lots of ideas for future data analysis tools. Without spilling the WP:BEANS, I'll say that of the currently unblocked accounts, I'm quite sure that WritersCramp, Battlefield, and Blockhouse321 are all SirIsaacBrock socks. I'm tagging them as suspected, but I think I've probably got enough to call them proven just on behavior. There's just not enough data on Discovered Check to say anything worthwhile.
I'm absolutely convinced that IQ125 and SirIsaacBrock are the same person. Those should probably get retagged, but I'm kind of burnt out on this case right now so I'm not going to bother.
If anybody wants more details, I've got extensive notes I can share off-wiki.
On a purely procedural note, Cavalryman, while I certainly appreciate the huge amount of effort you put into this, I see that you merged Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IQ125 into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SirIsaacBrock. In this case, it worked out fine, but you really should leave that kind of stuff (i.e. case merging) to the clerks. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, looks like the oldest account is WritersCramp, so this should probably get renamed. I see there was also arbcom involvement in this so @L235, Barkeep49, KrakatoaKatie, and BDD: pinging a few arbs to make sure they're aware. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What was the ArbCom involvement, RoySmith? Not seeing anything at a glance, but I could be missing something obvious. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's a bunch of stuff on User talk:Green Squares about the Ban Appeal Subcommittee lifting Green Squares/SirIsaacBrock's ban. To be honest, I'm not following all the details (and it was a very long time ago), so just wanted to make you aware to ensure I didn't accidentally step where I shouldn't have. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Roy. I did find the the conversation about this. It falls into the general idea that an ArbCom unblock is not a shield against any future sanction. A user should continue to be judged on their actions after an unblock. So future socking can and should be sanctioned normally. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23 January 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

ChanziP has edited the same diverse topic areas as the others, including but not limited to dogs (especially dog related blood sports), chess (with a particular fascination with Bobby Fischer), accounting and Canadian military history.

Please let me know if there is anything else required. Cavalryman (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

25 August 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Created on the same day that the last account, ChanziP, was blocked [224]. Large overlap with previous socks. Similar constellation of interests in dogfighting (e.g. [225] [226][227]), Canadian military history ([228][229][230]) and chess - see in particular edits to Bibliography of works on Bobby Fischer, created and substantially edited by SIB socks. Same habit of using ref and template markup in edit summaries ([231][232][233]/[234][235][236] , [237][238][239]/[240][241]). Similar timecard to recent sock accounts [242][243][244][245][246]. Spicy (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • Pink clock Awaiting administrative action - please indef Duck Dawny as a suspected sockpuppet of SirIsaacBrock. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's quite an overlap across some pretty obscure subjects.  Blocked and tagged. Closing. This is the point where I fruitlessly recommend that you get your own mop so you can just block these yourself Spicy. :) firefly ( t · c ) 09:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SirIsaacBrock/Archive&oldid=1106935747"