MFIreland

MFIreland (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
21 April 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Tendentious editing at military hardware and particularly Irish military-related articles. All articles, quite disparate apart from the general military theme (except for Susan Lynch a minor Irish actor) were edited by both accounts.

User is blocked for a year, but advised that this would probably be reduced if an appeal was made. Editor has previously edited using a sock and was blocked for same in Nov. 2010. RashersTierney (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2011 (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


14 May 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Similar edits to those posted by MFIreland before block.

Suggest editing pattern satisfies the 'Duck' requirement. RashersTierney (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2011 (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
31 January 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Compare contribution pages, concentration on military & arms, total absence of edit summaries, no discussion on talk pages whatsoever, and unlike previous sock with concentration on Ireland matters, there's now a concentration on Rhodesian matters. Editing patterns (section/page blanking) are also similar, but there's enough in the contribution pages to prove the case. Would an IP/range block be appropriate? TransporterMan (TALK) 16:43, 31 January 2012 (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
14 April 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Same tendentious style in same topic areas. Refuses to engage in any discussion, as per form of sock master. At least two other editors also suspect this is the same indef. blocked editor - see here and here. RashersTierney (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that these IPs are another manifestation of User:MFIreland. Exactly the same topics (Irish military matters), the same types of edit (changing WP:COMMONNAME terms to military jargon, typically substituting numerals for ordinals as in 1st Brigade > 1 Brigade), the same attempts to delete sourced material and introduce dubious material or OR, and the same behaviour in peremptorily reverting without explanation, and ignoring repeated efforts to engage via talk page. This blocked user is vandalising again and again, and tying up the time of constructive editors. Brocach (talk) 01:30, 15 April 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
OK, user has gone quiet of late and the target articles have stabilised, so they might have reconsidered their approach. Thanks for your time. Brocach (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
27 December 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Following on from a previous confirmed SPI case, the user MFIreland has returned to the same disruptive and SOCK behaviour. (Note: User never really went away for very long, but editted under a few different IPs before returning to pattern of creating multiple named accounts).

In any event, the above accounts are all apparently operated by the same user. As evidenced by:

Abuse of the accounts ranges from edit-warring, 3RR evasion, apparent inclusion of COPYVIO material, refusal to engage or follow CON - and generally being disruptive to a range of interrelated articles. Myself and other editors have been reasonable and patient with this type of behaviour, ([16] [17] [18] [19]) but this has been ongoing for some years now, and - well - enough is enough. Guliolopez (talk) 17:56, 27 December 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
30 May 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Army_Ranger_Wing&action=history and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MFIreland/Archive IrishSpook (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2014 (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 January 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

Typical edits of this sock. BilCat (talk) 00:47, 4 January 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

 Additional information needed: I have asked the reporter to supply diffs illustrating the evidence here ([20]). If no further details are forthcoming after several days, this SPI should be closed without any action taken. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

22 February 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

Behaviour, repeated pushing of the same dubious edits Andy Dingley (talk) 16:33, 22 February 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

  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. ~ Rob13Talk 18:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

07 May 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

After 86.165.119.144 was blocked for edit warring, user Sadiedens made this edit to British Army. Upon further investigation, I found that the user had been accused of sockpuppeting before as 86.170.84.88 who has a similar genre of edits. I dug deeper and found that user MFIreland, previously permabanned for sockpuppetry also used to edit British Army. As well as other similar pages. Finally, it seems that @Guliolopez: made the connection as well between MFIreland and 86.170.84.88 in the edit summary. The checkuser request is to see if there are additional puppets that might be already created since this is a long-time offender. Jcmcc (Talk) 12:59, 7 May 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

This case is  Stale. CU declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

16 December 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

Join Sags is LTA perma-banned sockaholic MFIreland. Any number of those editors familiar with this user's previous form will recognise the QUACKing from some distance away. The pattern of warring on the AgustaWestland AW139 article being a particularly obvious trait. Given that it is expected however, and QUACKs not themselves being "enough", for myself I would note simply the:

There are a number of editors (who have "interacted" with this disruptive LTA over many years) who I would invite to comment here. But am conscious of CANVAS. And chances are they'll find their way here anyway... Guliolopez (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update. And now we have Nine Steeny popping up. Just as this thread was opened and as Join Sags was warned by another editor for edit-warring, we find 'Nine Steeny' making the self-same edits on the same articles. Compare for example this edit by Join Sags with this edit by Nine Steeny. Same content, same spelling, same formatting, same edit. Same editor. Quack quack. Guliolopez (talk) 23:45, 19 December 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

Due to being confirmed to one another, as well as the timeline, blanking, and spacing evidence that show a unique behavior that all accounts exhibit, I've chosen to go ahead and tag the two accounts. This SPI can be closed... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More