Enidblyton11

Enidblyton11 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
16 April 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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

Enidblyton11 was indefinitely blocked in early March for adding an assassination hoax to Tony Windsor and it is clear that 144.136.101.108 is the same editor. Both added similar vandalism to Tony Windsor on or around the fourth of March, and 144.136.101.108 admitted the connection here on Windale,_New_South_Wales. Jarrodaus11 has the same pro-Liberal Party stance, has edited a number of similar articles as Enidblyton11 (see wikistalk results), and has been supported by 144.136.101.108 in disputes at Australian Greens and Talk:Sophie_Mirabella. I also have a sneaking suspicion that WikiCorrector2 may be related to Enidblyton11, but I have little to back this up. This is pretty much the extent of my evidence.

Orderinchaos, who has been keeping track of this SPI since he first filed it last year, believes there may be a relationship to the Stravin sockfarm. He believes Enidblyton = KAPITALIST88, that 58.106.81.131 is related to Enidblyton11, and that Jarrodaus11 = Stravin. He's also suggested that Романов (a reformed editor related to the Stravin and Wikistar/GJGardner editors from previous reports in this SPI, see his admission) might be related. Please see User talk:Orderinchaos#User:Enidblyton11 and socks for a more detailed account of his reasoning.

If possible, I'd like to see if a checkuser can determine:

Thanks.   -- Lear's Fool 06:18, 16 April 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]
I've blocked Jarrodaus11. Given that there's no definite link to Stravin, can I suggest that a Clerk move this report to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Enidblyton11?  -- Lear's Fool 03:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So done. (The stupid way.) — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]



11 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 think behavioural evidence is nearly sufficent for here, but I'd like Checkuser evidence to be sure, and check for any sleepers. Behavioural similarities between Timbracks13 (talk · contribs), Jarrodaus11 (talk · contribs) and Enidblyton11 (talk · contribs) include:

The user has already been blocked for disruptive editing.   -- Lear's Fool 11:23, 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.

When I blocked this editor I thought that their behavior looked awfully familiar but couldn't remember the name of the other accounts. I definitely agree that this is the sme editor based on their contributions, though CU confirmation would be helpful (especially as there may be further socks). Nick-D (talk) 11:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarity. Timeshift (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Admission by Enidblyton11 that they created Timbracks13. Bidgee (talk) 12:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
26 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've just blocked Jackthart (talk · contribs) as another sockpuppet of Enidblyton11 (talk · contribs) based on their contributions - the similarities with the most recent confirmed sock Timbracks13 (talk · contribs) are pretty obvious (adding negative material about members of the Australian Greens, focusing heavily on the The Bolt Report article and disputing the prod deletion of the very obscure Rainbow Liberals article which Timbracks13 created, for instance). Could a check please be done to see if there are any further sleeper socks? Thanks. Nick-D (talk) 01:18, 26 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]
17 June 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Obviously not a new editor. Has a similar editing style to Enidblyton11, particularly the flurry of edits immediately after account creation, the early morning (Australian time) activity, and the focus on Australian Politics. This effort to add the phrase "left-wing" to the infobox of the Australian Greens is a continuation of the same dispute he previously pursued as Enidblyton11 here   -- Lear's Fool 19:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a further note that after the most recent unblock request at User talk:Enidblyton11, his talkpage access has been removed on all accounts to prevent vexatious unblock requests. -- Lear's Fool 19:53, 17 June 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]

On the basis of this account's contributions and editing style, it is obvious that this is Enidblyton11 (talk · contribs) once again. I've blocked the account but left them with the ability to edit their talk page so that another admin can review this decision when the inevitable unblock request is lodged. I'm not sure if a CU is needed here as the contributions evidence is pretty strong. Nick-D (talk) 23:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

08 September 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

I'm not totally sure about a link between Welshboyau11 and EnidBlyton11, so I'd appreciate input from less involved editors. Obviously the old accounts are stale, so all I have is behavioural evidence.

For anyone not keen on wading through the sock-puppet investigation archive, I put together a summary of Enid's disruption here.   -- Lear's Fool 15:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that both User:Timbracks13 and Welshboyau11 have tried to get Timeshift9's userpage deleted as an attack page.  -- Lear's Fool 16:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Welshboyau11 is currently partway through a day's block and unable to respond here. --Pete (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've just blocked Welshboyau11 (talk · contribs) per WP:DUCK, and posted a more detailed rationale on their talk page. Based on my experience with chasing Enidblyton11's previous socks, this is clearly the same person. Nick-D (talk) 23:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More