Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Waterspaces/Archive

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | Waterspaces


Waterspaces

01 August 2010
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
edit
Evidence submitted by Raywil
edit

This user frequently IP-hops and creates new accounts to get around blocks which he amasses due to edit warring. Per WP:DUCK this user is another sockpuppet of User:Waterspaces which was the first account to be blocked. Please see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Waterspaces to see all of the suspected sockpuppets. Some of them are quite old so may not be worth investigating, however, all of the accounts/ip addresses edit the same kinds of articles, e.g. the Wapping Tunnel, Waterloo Tunnel, Victoria Tunnel, Merseyrail, Canada Dock Branch etc. By performing the same kinds of edits, (see below), I think it is quite clear that this user is a sockpuppeteer. More evidence could perhaps be found by using CheckUser on the accounts that have recently been active and seeing if they match any of the ip-addresses. One thing that I think makes it fairly clear that this user is a sockpuppeteer is the fact that all of the accounts happen to use the incorrect term "Merseyrail Metro" - a term which I have seen no other editors use. Another trait of this user is that he names people in his edit summaries, claims to know them and, thinks that consensus doesn't matter and that everyone who goes against his unsubstantiated opinion is a vandal.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarence_Dock_%28Liverpool%29&diff=prev&oldid=375415245
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wapping_Tunnel&diff=375241215&oldid=375240691
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merseyrail&diff=376589396&oldid=376589157
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merseyrail&diff=376589157&oldid=375725194

Example of different accounts/ip addresses being used:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merseyrail&diff=372093510&oldid=372044342
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merseyrail&diff=372020919&oldid=372017161
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merseyrail&diff=376590221&oldid=376589396

First time I've started a sockpuppet enquiry. Hope I've done it right and that you can get enough evidence from the diffs I've shown or from the edit histories of the accounts listed on the Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Waterspaces page. Raywil (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This incident may also be of interest: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive531#User:Waterspaces. Raywil (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties   
edit

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
edit

User:Kitchen Knife I agree with RayWill. All I have to add it that I beleive he has made mods to Liverpool Overhead Railway and has in the past changed what he regards as railway geek speak like EMU.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:WatcherZero I believe the Duck test is very applicable in this instance, its the same text being added again and again and the same love of bullet lists over prose. WatcherZero (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:L1v3rp00l Agree with the above. Manages to get around bans with alternative IPs despite making the same style of edits with no regard for sources or neutrality. Becoming a real nuisance in the Merseyrail article and its talk page. L1v3rp00l (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
edit

  Clerk note: Moved from WP:Sockpuppet investigations/WritingStuff to be in line with suspected sockmaster's name --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Clerk declined Waterspaces (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is   Stale and   Looks like a duck to me. This can be completed on behavioral evidence alone. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Administrator note 86.137.75.132 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) blocked and tagged. Also blocked range 79.66.0.0/17. This has a little collateral damage but most edits are related, and this appears to be our only option right now. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Administrator note Blocked 79.65.100.226/22 as well. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

01 August 2010
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
edit
Evidence submitted by Raywil
edit

This user frequently IP-hops and creates new accounts to get around blocks which he amasses due to edit warring. Per WP:DUCK this user is another sockpuppet of User:Waterspaces which was the first account to be blocked. Please see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Waterspaces to see all of the suspected sockpuppets. Some of them are quite old so may not be worth investigating, however, all of the accounts/ip addresses edit the same kinds of articles, e.g. the Wapping Tunnel, Waterloo Tunnel, Victoria Tunnel, Merseyrail, Canada Dock Branch etc. By performing the same kinds of edits, (see below), I think it is quite clear that this user is a sockpuppeteer. More evidence could perhaps be found by using CheckUser on the accounts that have recently been active and seeing if they match any of the ip-addresses. One thing that I think makes it fairly clear that this user is a sockpuppeteer is the fact that all of the accounts happen to use the incorrect term "Merseyrail Metro" - a term which I have seen no other editors use. Another trait of this user is that he names people in his edit summaries, claims to know them and, thinks that consensus doesn't matter and that everyone who goes against his unsubstantiated opinion is a vandal.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarence_Dock_%28Liverpool%29&diff=prev&oldid=375415245
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wapping_Tunnel&diff=375241215&oldid=375240691
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merseyrail&diff=376589396&oldid=376589157
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merseyrail&diff=376589157&oldid=375725194

Example of different accounts/ip addresses being used:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merseyrail&diff=372093510&oldid=372044342
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merseyrail&diff=372020919&oldid=372017161
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merseyrail&diff=376590221&oldid=376589396

First time I've started a sockpuppet enquiry. Hope I've done it right and that you can get enough evidence from the diffs I've shown or from the edit histories of the accounts listed on the Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Waterspaces page. Raywil (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This incident may also be of interest: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive531#User:Waterspaces. Raywil (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties   
edit

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
edit

User:Kitchen Knife I agree with RayWill. All I have to add it that I beleive he has made mods to Liverpool Overhead Railway and has in the past changed what he regards as railway geek speak like EMU.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:WatcherZero I believe the Duck test is very applicable in this instance, its the same text being added again and again and the same love of bullet lists over prose. WatcherZero (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
edit

  Clerk note: Moved from WP:Sockpuppet investigations/WritingStuff to be in line with suspected sockmaster's name --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Clerk declined Waterspaces (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is   Stale and   Looks like a duck to me. This can be completed on behavioral evidence alone. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Administrator note 86.137.75.132 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) blocked and tagged. Also blocked range 79.66.0.0/17. This has a little collateral damage but most edits are related, and this appears to be our only option right now. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Administrator note Blocked 79.65.100.226/22 as well. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Administrator note Blocked 212.139.127.63/24 as well. After doing some research I find it highly likely that this is related as well. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]



02 August 2010
edit

This RayWil person has an attude problem. He should removed from any authority on Wiki. NOT THE SUITABLE TYPE. He is full of his own misguided opinions not fact.

Suspected sockpuppets
edit


Evidence submitted by Raywil
edit

Hi, as a continuation of the case archived yesterday here, I believe 194.83.172.121 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) is the same user trying bypass the various blocks that were given yesterday. I have come to this conclusion based on WP:DUCK as this IP address is performing the same type of edits on the same article (Victoria Tunnel (Liverpool). Further evidence to support the claim is that 194.83.172.121 is registered to a public library as shown on its talk page. It would be quite easy for a user whose home IP address has been blocked to go to a library to edit instead.


Diffs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victoria_Tunnel_%28Liverpool%29&diff=376786896&oldid=376621973
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victoria_Tunnel_%28Liverpool%29&diff=376579151&oldid=376504353


In addition to the edit histories of Victoria Tunnel (Liverpool), those of Wapping Tunnel and Waterloo Tunnel may also be of interest.

Also, just found that the source which these IPs have been adding to the Victoria Tunnel (Liverpool) article was also referred to by User:Waterspaces at Talk:Merseyrail#All plans are acceptable.

Many thanks for looking into this. Raywil (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   
edit

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
edit

User:L1v3rp00l Clearly the same user - has submitted a comment in the same style as Waterspaces in the Merseyrail article talk page, defending the erroneous "Metro" term. L1v3rp00l (talk) 20:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both geolocate to the UK, the 212.139.127.63 specifically to London. I think these are definite socks. Usb10 Let's talk 'bout it! 23:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
edit

  Administrator note 194.83.172.121 blocked 1 week (just in case this IP is not dynamic, but IMO it isn't) and 88.109.0.44 blocked 31 hours. The Victoria Tunnel (Liverpool) has been semi-protected 2 weeks for excessive socking. –MuZemike 16:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't edited in over 3 days, so I intentionally ignored it. –MuZemike 16:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
05 August 2010
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
edit


Evidence submitted by Raywil
edit

Sorry to resurrect this yet again, but there comes another IP address in the form of 88.109.8.182 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) that happens to edit the same obscure page (Talk:Victoria Tunnel (Liverpool)) less than a day after a similar IP address (88.109.0.44 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))) is blocked as being a sock of User:Waterspaces. Both IP addresses also trace back to the same ISP and geographic ___location so   Looks like a duck to me. Raywil (talk) 08:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this diff I think the accused should also take the time to read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Anyway, normally I would remove such content as being vandalism, however in this case I'm not sure if his comment should be moved to the "Comments by accused parties" section so I'll leave that decision to the clerks. Raywil (talk) 09:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties   
edit

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
edit
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
edit

  Administrator note Talk:Victoria Tunnel (Liverpool) semi-protected 2 weeks. This person is using a rather dynamic IP range with a few innocent users on it, so rangeblocking is not feasible here. –MuZemike 14:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

08 August 2010
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
edit


Evidence submitted by Raywil
edit

Editing same niche category of articles; same ISP with same geographic ___location; same way of proclaiming others as vandals [1]; same disregard for WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. [2][3].   Looks like a duck to me Raywil (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   
edit

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
edit
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
edit

I'm not sure if 81.178.163.252 is a sock (not to mention it hasn't edited in a bit), but 88.109.9.182 certainly is. Blocked 31h. –MuZemike 23:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

09 August 2010
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
edit


Evidence submitted by Kitchen Knife
edit

He is back as User:88.109.6.3 --Kitchen Knife (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC):Also editing his User:WritingStuff‎ user page.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Currently autoblocked. TNXMan 17:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, rangeblocked, see [4]. TNXMan 17:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties   
edit

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
edit
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
edit

  Clerk note: Reverted closure. There's more work to do here. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Administrator note Created filter 350. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  Clerk note: Closing --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
18 August 2010
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
edit


Evidence submitted by Raywil
edit

Editing the same articles in the same style of User:Waterspaces; i.e. total disregard for WP:OWN, WP:Discussion as well as other policies and guidelines. 194.83.172.121 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) traces back to a library which the user has been blocked from editing from in the past. The other two IP addresses both trace back to same ISP that the user has used in the past, as well as the same geographic ___location.   Looks like a duck to me Raywil (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   
edit

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
edit

Agree very duck like. Interms of subject and language.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
edit

194.83.172.121 blocked 1 month, 81.178.160.0/20 blocked 24 hours (I'm afraid to go any longer because of the potential for collateral damage). –MuZemike 15:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

18 August 2010
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
edit


Evidence submitted by Raywil
edit

Liverpool-8-boy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) has been listed as a suspected sockpuppet of User:Waterspaces for a while based on his past editing history. It's funny how the account suddenly becomes active again just two hours after IP socks of Waterspaces are blocked.   Looks like a duck to me, but you may want to list it for CheckUser as well if you want to see what IP address the user has logged in with and can't draw any conclusions otherwise. Raywil (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   
edit

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
edit
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
edit
  Administrator note Blocked, already tagged. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6 Feb 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
edit


Evidence submitted by Kitchen Knife
edit

Editing the same articles in the same style of User:Waterspaces; i.e. total disregard for WP:OWN, WP:Discussion as well as other policies and guidelines. Diff Classic Waterspaces   Looks like a duck to me --Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing the request as I have made of mistake this user is a sockpuppet of User:Dmcm2008 who was a some what trouble some user but was only blocked for a short period. For information compare Dmcm2008 and BabyDoll--Kitchen Knife (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties   
edit

See Defending yourself against claims.

Unsure what this refers (Waterspaces) it aint me. The user Kitchen Knife has disagreed many times with my edits. The user takes a hard lined stance against me rather than discussing matters. Such as again today. I understand this may refer to either edits on Merseyrail or the most recent edit on Central Village. With Merseyrail i saw the opportunity to create the template for the Merseyrail City Line as this was the only template not evident (Mereyrail Network is three lines, Northern, Wirral and City lines). I got in to difficultes i may not have done this totally right but i asked for help and another user has offered help. Regarding the Central Village edit. I understand Kitchen Knife reverted some changes i made based on no explanation. I apologise i did not leave an explanation. I refer to the subsequent change i then made. I did a change because the text suggested these were all recent developments in Liverpool taking it in to the 21st Century. With respect the "Commercial District" (a modern term on its own) was already there - ie. Old Hall Street, Liverpool Echo etc ..just that the commercial district was being developed & therefore brought in to the 21st Century. It's play on words i tried to correct as the original text was very ambiguous. I have made a number of edits recently based on another editors work that has made more prominent what is LIVERPOOL CITY CENTRE. However a lot are business terms, terminology and jargon and this needed to be toned down, which is what i have done. I don't know who or what Waterspaces is but user Kitchen Knife does not like me and has often made my edits more difficult by taking a hard line approach. I have had disagreements with Kitchen Knife in the past and I feel this is a vendetta against me - but regardless of my opinion - I do not like being accused of being another user who for whatever reason is the subject of this. I feel this is all wrong the way Kitchen Knife has put me in this predicament and i cannot say how infuriated i am. I have done no wrong how can this happen? Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC) I wish to add in response to the accusers additional notes and withdrawral that this is harrassment by Kitchen Knife i feel that my concern about this being some kind of vendetta as vindicated. Babydoll9799 (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it was a Vendetta then I would not have withdrawn.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
edit
A link was placed on his User page, rather than his talk page.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
edit
21 April 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

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

This IP has just started editing articles of the same niche as those of User:Waterspaces. A reference to Liverpool's disused tunnels is made here, one of the key themes of the edits of Waterspaces. Another of the puppeteer's interests is Merseyrail, in particular its history and potential future expansion. Funnily enough this IP has also made edits relating to the history of Merseyrail here. A reference to Merseyrail being a metro is also made here (something Waterspaces always did) as well as what looks like a bit of meatpuppetry in the same diff. Further evidence that this IP user is a sock can be found in this diff where the station is specifically noted as an "underground station", something that Waterspaces and his sockpuppets always did, despite being against the naming convention here as well as consensus. As a result of all this evidence   Looks like a duck to me. Raywil (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

I agree it is a Duck.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
19 May 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

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

I hope the edit history of this user can provide enough evidence as I unforunately don't have the time at the moment to provide specific examples. As per usual the edits are to Merseyrail and associated articles. Traits are mentioned here: Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Waterspaces.   Looks like a duck to me Raywil (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2011 (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


28 May 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

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

The usual articles and the the usual behavior.   Looks like a duck to me [5] [6] Previous blocks applied to this IP address for sockpuppetry by the same user have since been lifted. Raywil (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2011 (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

  Administrator note Blocked 6 months. Elockid (Talk) 15:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

03 September 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Back again editing the same article (Merseyrail). This particular address has been blocked twice in the past so may be static. Compare this diff from before the first block of this IP with something from today. The recent edits appear to be fairly innocent so far, but   Looks like a duck to me Raywil (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2011 (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
06 September 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Compare edit from a known IP of the sock here with this edit. Same article, and the same content re-added. There is also an attempt at canvassing on the article's talk page [7] where the usual language and references to Liverpool's tunnels are mentioned.   Looks like a duck to me and very much so. Raywil (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2011 (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
28 August 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Check contribs to see that the same articles, e.g. Merseyrail, List of metro systems etc. are being edited again. Pretty clearly the same user, so perhaps this is a static IP address after all. Raywil (talk) 02:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

  Administrator note Blocked 1 year. Elockid (Talk) 17:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

03 April 2013
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Seems like a duck to me, given the infatuation on editing within the same old topics as Waterspaces was well known for (Merseyrail), with the same "railtype" changes that the IPs blocked as socks of Waterspaces had.

All basically the same POV-pushing edits (with some tweaks, across multiple articles) and similar edit summaries. Now compare it to these edits from blocked IPs/socks: [22][23]. The quacking is strong here, and the IPs are clearly the same account as BigScribe, and have been editing consecutively, so there's blatant socking going on there, even if by some weird chance it isn't Waterspaces. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Rschen, what do you require beyond what's already here? If you compare the diffs, and the statements by the users that have frequently seen Waterspaces' socks, I'm not sure what else I need to add? Also, I wonder if any of these IPs are proxies. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

Firstly, User:BigScribe claims to be different from the aforementioned IP editors but is clearly the same person. He also made a false accusation that his talk page comments were being wrongly ascribed to him; these points are proven wrong by a cursory glance at the Merseyrail talk page history. His attitude and propensity to use bold text to imply shouting is exactly the same as Waterspaces and previous socks, as are his opinions on what Merseyrail is (i.e. a 'metro'/'rapid transit' system) which goes against the general consensus. His poor talk page conduct (making ad hominem attacks on members and ignoring people's views) is another hallmark of Waterspaces. Then there is the continuing obsession of his that I work for Merseyrail or Northern Rail. Waterspaces and related socks made the same accusation over and over again. I don't work for either operator, not that is bears any relevance to the article. L1v3rp00l (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Add to the above list
this being a similar contributor to User talk:Redrose64#Merseyrail. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some possible more:

There may be more in the Merseyrail history. Simply south...... eating shoes for just 7 years 18:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit, the comment "There is is approx 5 miles of tunnel under Liverpool awaiting reuse" is a dead giveaway for Waterspaces (talk · contribs) who had an obsession with Liverpool's disused rail tunnels. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Considering what has happened not only in the past month but over the past few years, do you think Merseyrail should be indef semi-protected? Simply south...... eating shoes for just 7 years 19:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merseyrail should be indeffed, and the several other articles this user has frequented (but are less vandalised), like the List of Metro stations, Urban Rail in the United Kingdom, etc, should see a long semi-protect (6 months at first, year second, indef after). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It beggars belief just how many socks there are. Also, from looking at Waterspaces' contributions list, there are another two dead giveaways that BigScribe and the IP list are all him: "Reverting gross vandalism" in response to any edit he doesn't agree with (BigScribe has repeatedly said this too) and the repeated addition of claimed sources with either don't exist or don't support the claims made in the article. Quack... L1v3rp00l (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree with your comments above, Luke. This has been going on for a long time now and needs sorting. The Merseyrail and Tyne and Wear Metro remain protected and their development is being held up - as Luke says it's abundantly clear these are sock accounts and none of his edits comply with the consensus on either article. L1v3rp00l (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
  •   Clerk note: This seems like a better candidate for semiprotection, which can be requested at WP:RPP - we're not going to block a ton of obviously dynamic IPs. As for the named editor, can you provide some concise evidence? Rschen7754 09:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocked named account. The IPs are obviously dynamic and the range is too big to block. Semiprotection would be a better answer. Closing. Rschen7754 06:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
25 July 2013
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Having been quiet for a while, it appears this user is back, and has shifted track slightly, to the Mersey Railway article; [27][28] - same MO of pushing a particular POV on the rail transit/commuter rail/metro thing, same basic area (Merseyrail). This is at RFPP at the moment, so I'm also pinging this here. Same O2-based IPs as in the past as well, given the WHOIS report. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

Just to back up what Luke said: it's an identical editing style, the usual problem with accepting that Merseyrail simply isn't, never has been and never will be, a rapid transit or metro system. Exactly the same MO. Definite duck. L1v3rp00l (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the only difference this time is that I'm the one taking the abuse, not you. Very similar "Wiki is not x" comments from the current account as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just bumped into a couple of this individuals IP edits in and around Rapid Transit / History of Rapid Transit. Would be quite happy to discuss with the IP what he thinks, but his edits are so POV laden that it's difficult to weed out the constructive from the distracting. If he posted a rationale of his argument and some evidence, I'd be happy to read it. Koncorde (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and he came to my attention via his edits to the Scouse talk page [30] Koncorde (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't read the logs until just now, I didn't realise this was such a long ongoing thing. Condolences to all involved. Koncorde (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
29 July 2013
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


User back after a day at a new IP address, same POV being pushed in Rapid Transit. Have withdrawn from 3RR temporarily rather than continue edit warring. Can we request a protection for the obvious subjects? Koncorde (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2013 (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
  • Main target has been semiprotected for three months. IPs are changing too fast for single blocks to matter. If disruption continues elsewhere, reopen the case, and rangeblocks will have to be considered. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This whole thing is a total waste of space. the real Rod Hull (ref user name rodhullemu) died in 1999. In jokes are fine but don't inflict them on the the rest of us unspecting Wiki users. If you want attention create a blog or something and bore the crap out of your devotees (or should that be devotee)

17 January 2017

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:90.213.130.132 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Semi)   Looks like a duck to me. Nördic Nightfury 21:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

03 February 2023

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

  Clerk note: Original case name Wisdom-inc

Editing exact same articles Merseyrail and Wankel engine in exact same way. Clearly doesn't understand the concept of a permanent block. Quacking like a duck so very much doubt a checkuser is needed! 10mmsocket (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

19 July 2024

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

  Clerk note: Original case name Wisdom-inc

Comments apply to the IP address range 143.58.173.0/24 and 143.58.176.0/24, and also the IPV6 range - Virtually identical articles edits. Same editing style, same comments and in particular the same types of arguments in article talk pages. ISP is the same as the previous SPI investigation. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This ANI case is also relevant - it is highly likely the same editor. --10mmsocket (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 July, 2A01:4B00:BB18:A600:E738:4C0D:38F4:6829 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (reported above) was given a one-week block for disruptive editing. --10mmsocket (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - but 1 week isn't going to cut it. This IP editor has long-term behavioural issues going back years - disruptive editing, personal insults. I don't understand why Wikipedia is so lenient with this IP. Cnbrb (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2024 (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

12 September 2024

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

  Clerk note: Original case name Wisdom-inc

Blocked back in July and then again in August (for the third time). Now the block has expired he/she is back making the same disruptive edits on High Speed 2 from the IPV6 address, and train-related edits from the IPV4 address. Both in clear contravention of WP:BE. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

This 10mmsocket editor keeps thinking I am someone else called Wisdom. He keeps banning me for no reason. He also removed text in the talk page suppressing speech. He is a bully and should have all editorial privileges removed. 2A01:4B00:BB18:A600:E738:4C0D:38F4:6829 (talk) 10:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admins ban you. I merely point our your repeat offence to them so that they can do the deed. 10mmsocket (talk) 10:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

07 August 2025

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Exact same childish argumentative behaviour on articles such as Merseyrail as the original user and previous blocked IP editors in the 143.58.0.0/16 range. This person has been causing havoc on all his favourite articles for months since the last ranges were blocked in September 2024.Some individual IPs blocked individually since e.g. 143.58.246.170 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) WP:DUCK definitely applies. --10mmsocket (talk) 12:55, 7 August 2025 (UTC) 10mmsocket (talk) 12:55, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can clearly see from today's discussion at Talk:Merseyrail, and from the previous discussion there in March that this person has been editing for the sole purpose of creating an argument and winding up other users by ignoring all responses and just bludgeoning a single point of view. That's his perverse M.O. --10mmsocket (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2025 (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
  •   Additional information needed - 10mmsocket, can you provide some example diffs of the behaviour from the sockmaster, so we don't have to go digging for them? Thanks. asilvering (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course.
    • Example 1 - wisdom-inc (diff) which is part of a long argument about the City Line within Merseyrail. Scroll down to the end of the next section "City Line is shown in red on the Merseyrail map" and you'll see examples of his argumentative style accusing people of amnesia, of jumping to conclusions, of doing things to suit their own agenda e.g. with the comment "You have purposely selected a map to suit your agenda, ignoring all other points".
    • Example 1 - IP editor (diff) just a short section of today's arguments and you'll see very similar langague. And then this argument (diff) on the IP's talk page which reverted personal attacks about the same topic of the City Line within Merseyrail.
    10mmsocket (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    --------------------------
    August 2025. He cannot prove anything. This 10mm socket fellow is accusing me of being some else. He and another editor in Merseyrail's talk page were proven wrong. They were given firm photographic evidence when they objected to a change, which was actually in the article itself, so took umbridge. The other editor has butchered the intro to the point it is now a disgrace. He never knew that refs are discouraged in intros. It is clear two editors do not like being proven wrong, so to save face they both have taken it to a personal level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.58.177.6 (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How interesting that you should accuse people of "butchering" - just like Wisdom Inc does (diff). --10mmsocket (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And another in the other IP ranges "stop butchering the article" (diff). 10mmsocket (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering in going back through talk page archives and in particular the protection log for Merseyrail I now see what I think is compelling evidence that Wisdom Inc is in fact another sock account going right back to 2010 - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Waterspaces. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@10mmsocket huh boy. I'd hate to think there were multiple Merseyrail-obsessed sockpuppeteers. Are they still doing the "Merseyrail is a rapid transit/metro system" thing? -- asilvering (talk) 16:33, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Their latest reason is that Merseytravel are using signs with Metro on them… Danners430 tweaks made 16:38, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can't make this stuff up. -- asilvering (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you (and yes they are doing such things). What amazes me is I thought this was a petulant teenagers, but the longevity of this abuse means it's the edits themselves that are the teenagers! 10mmsocket (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09 August 2025

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Editing the exact same mix of transport articles. IP address resolves to same ISP as the IPV4 ranges blocked in the past few days. --10mmsocket (talk) 11:51, 9 August 2025 (UTC) 10mmsocket (talk) 11:51, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Just a quick note User:10mmsocket - I'd recommend holding off on mass-reverting someone's edits with an edit summary of "Block Evasion by user X" until the SPI has actually be closed or actioned on - remember we're not CUs, we can only open the cases as SUSPECTED sockpuppets. Danners430 tweaks made 13:29, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Will hold off in future. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I don't disagree - the quackening is deafing (wait what?) - but innocent until proven guilty :-) Danners430 tweaks made 13:50, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

08 August 2025

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

This IP keeps on carrying out unsourced editing on various Volkswagen related articles, which a Block dodge is suspected. Requesting a CU to check if this IP possible to the user stated in this diff:[31] Hlfxcuc (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

These should be moved to the case above not left here. But you're absolutely right to report him. From what I can see it's the same person, the same interest, similar edits, and the same 143.58.0.0/16 address range that has been blocked multiple times. --10mmsocket (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Waterspaces/Archive&oldid=1308559458"