Kipperfield

Kipperfield (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
21 May 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


All these editors are doing nothing much else except systematically changing date formats in articles. Some have been doing it for many years. The edits are near identical [1][2][3][4][5]. All of them rarely or never leave edit summaries and none of them respond to warnings or communicate in any way [6][7][8][9][10]. There is also a common theme in many of the usernames, breaking them up into cryptic-crossword-like puns. This was brought to my attention by a user because I had warned Robin partridge last year (who I have now blocked). More were then brought to my attention, and then a second batch. I had thought there was an arbitration ruling in force on systematic date changing but it no longer seems to be on the Arbcom list of current remedies. The editing seems to have started around the time of the "date wars", but in any case is a clear breach of WP:DATERET. Given what has come out of the woodwork so far, I am requesting checkuser as there are quite likely to be more sleepers and active socks that we haven't found yet. SpinningSpark 14:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
24 October 2013
Suspected sockpuppets



For the record. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

06 January 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


This date warrior has a near identical MO to previous socks. Rapid editing doing nothing but changing date formats to Kipperfields preferred format (dd month yyyy), no communication, and uninformative, repetitive edit summary. The username also fits the same "cryptic clue" type name of many other socks.

The edit summaries say "consistency" but many of the edits were not inconsistent, they were just changed to the preferred format [11]. Even where there was some inconsistency, the date is always changed to the preferred format regardless of the date format the article was created in, or the most common format commonly in the article, or the format in the lead.[12][13]. And in this case [14] the inconsistency was caused by one of Kipperfield's previous socks [15]

Given the huge number of socks uncovered by the previous checkuser investigation, another checkuser is warranted. SpinningSpark 19:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC) Spinning[reply]

Oh, forgot to say, I have already blocked Loose eel, this report is mainly to find further socks. SpinningSpark 20:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Loose eel (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Quatre mille quatre cent quatre-vingt quatre (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
We've found a cure! (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Blue Anchor (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Mike V • Talk 17:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

28 January 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


New account, all edits are to change date formats to put the day before the month. Peter James (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC) Peter James (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

03 December 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Single purpose account making the same pointless changes to date formats. [16] [17] [18] [19] Sro23 (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Three of the four edits listed above seem legitimate, and the fourth not unreasonable.

  1. Angelo Dolci, the article had two mdy dates in a sea of dmy dates.
  2. Anne-Louis Girodet de Roussy-Trioson was an EB 1911 cut and paste, and might be expected to use dmy dates.
  3. Sabina Jeschke had a dmy date of birth from the beginning, but the inofbox was added without df=y.
  4. Viacheslav Belavkin had a mdy birth date and a dmy death date. According to STRONGNAT it should be dmy.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I picked those diffs at random simply to prove a point. In hindsight, they probably weren't the best to use, but should it really matter whether a sock's edits are helpful or not? They're still evading a block. Anyway, I can think of plenty of instances where Kipperfield socks have indeed made seemingly pointless and even purposefully disruptive edits in violation of MOS:DATERET. Sro23 (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

16 December 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

WP:DUCK same pointless date changes as other socks. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be the latest Kipperfield IPsock. This time they have the gall to cite MOS:DATEUNIFY, when all they're really doing is violating MOS:DATERET. [20] [21] Sro23 (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Quinton Feldberg, 146.198.51.127 hasn't edited in literally six months. Blocking it now would be pointless. Sro23 (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Again, the examples given are legitimate:

  1. Hans Teeuwen had a dmy dob, and the infobox has been made consistent. He currently performs in English in the UK so STRONGNAT could be said to apply.
  2. Antonio Cocchi also had dmy text, and the infobox has been made consistent.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 IP blocked RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did a very quick scan of edits on the same /24 and it appears that this IP is the only one recently in use by the master. Nothing more to do at this time. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

21 January 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

An obvious sock, the account's sole purpose seems to be to mess around with date formats, citing MOS:DATEUNIFY [22], just like before [23]. Historically many, many sleeper accounts were discovered, which is why this time I request CU. Sro23 (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Confirmed to previous socks. No other accounts seen. Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

11 March 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Another date warrior, as usual with a unique username as well. [24] [25] [26] Sro23 (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

05 June 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

WP:DUCK Quinton Feldberg (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[27], [28]. Master: [29], [30] Quinton Feldberg (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Special:Contributions/Pru Freda. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Account's sole purpose is to change dates to their preferred format. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

25 July 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

[31][32] Quinton Feldberg (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

03 August 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

[33] [34] Quinton Feldberg (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

04 August 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

And the next day he's at it again. [35] [36] Quinton Feldberg (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe run a sleeper check againt his latest sock as well? Quinton Feldberg (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

24 August 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

 Looks like a duck to me [37] [38] Quinton Feldberg (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

25 August 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

 Looks like a duck to me [39] [40] Quinton Feldberg (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

01 September 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

 It looks like a duck to me [41] [42] Quinton Feldberg (talk) 22:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alison, Avraham, Bbb23, DoRD, Keegan, KrakatoaKatie, Materialscientist, MusikAnimal, Ponyo, Versageek, Callanecc, Casliber, DeltaQuad, Drmies, DGG, Doug Weller, Euryalus, GorillaWarfare, Keilana, Kelapstick, Kirill Lokshin, Ks0stm, Mkdw, Newyorkbrad, Opabinia regalis, Beeblebrox, Courcelles, Deskana, Jpgordon, LFaraone, Guerillero, Mailer diablo, NativeForeigner, PhilKnight, Risker, Salvio giuliano, Timotheus Canens, and Yunshui: Can someone please just hurry up and CHECK already? The June 5 batch isn't gonna remain non-stale forever! Quinton Feldberg (talk) 05:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

This case is being reviewed by Sro23 as part of the clerk training process. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on their Talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

02 September 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

 It looks like a duck to me [43] [44] Quinton Feldberg (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 IP blocked. GABgab 00:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

11 October 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

 Looks like a duck to me [45] [46] Quinton Feldberg (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

12 October 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

 Looks like a duck to me Same pointless date changes. [47] [48] Quinton Feldberg (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

09 November 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

WP:DUCK; persistent date-warring just like previous socks ([49] [50]). Requesting CU as sockmaster is known for operating multiple accounts simultaneously Sro23 (talk) 19:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

CU evidence suggests it's  Possible that Little Anne Doffen is a Kipperfield sock, but no more than that. This one will need to be called on behaviour. Yunshui 雲水 13:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to say that Little Anne Doffen and Living proof (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) are  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

01 July 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

[53] Same date changes as previous socks. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10Eleventeen 18:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

The case is  Stale. CU declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

28 October 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


See below.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

06 November 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

Same date changes as previous socks. [54][55] Balkywrest (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC) Balkywrest (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Insufficient evidence of anything much. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

15 November 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


For the record.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Confirmed,  Blocked and tagged.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

03 August 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

 Looks like a duck to me [56] [57] Please oh please (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clearer link-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

06 May 2020

Suspected sockpuppets


See below.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Confirmed

 Blocked and tagged.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More