Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HarveyCarter/Archive

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | HarveyCarter


HarveyCarter

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

Older archives were moved to an archive of the archive because of the page size and are listed below:

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

23 February 2015
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

User:Morboso created this section on the article about the forthcoming British general election, complaining about the boundaries at British general elections being "rigged." Morboso was blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of GeorgeJeffreys. Now CWLilius has joined, editing in the same section, making exactly the same claims and arguments as Morboso and has also started a section on the article for the 2010 British general election, again complaining about the boundaries being "rigged." The behavioural evidence here is fairly obvious. Valenciano (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC) Valenciano (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2015 (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
01 March 2015
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


The style and viewpoint is the same as GeorgeJefferys who was blocked for socking. Notice the use of the term "rigged."

He did not win the 2012 election

"The introduction should not say Putin won the March 2012 election, because it was rigged. He only "won" by stealing more than 8 million votes from his opponents." (GeorgeJefferys (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC))[1]

Dictator

"As Putin has never won an election that wasn't rigged, should the article mention the fact that he is an unelected dictator?" (AlexisStymer (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC))[2] TFD (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2015 (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
-- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
15 June 2015
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Shows the same pattern of behavior of a previously blocked sock [3][4]

Old sock: [5][6] Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:05, 15 June 2015 (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

The following accounts are   Confirmed:

DelmarAndrews (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
RobbieSterling (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
HobneyStout (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
FredLanson (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
MoscheDaynan (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
ChasLynam (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
DavosOnly (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
ArthurLederer (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
WilliamKillarney (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Varislie (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Mike V • Talk 19:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
09 July 2015
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

CharltonChiltern is disruptive in the pattern of HarveyCarter. Same with JackDouglag, GavinHerlihy and JudgeDfg. The IPs are also HarveyCarter. I will submit evidence within the day. Checkuser is requested because this person often creates a raft of puppets; the last SPI case three weeks ago found ten of them. Binksternet (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of these accounts were registered after 15 June, the most recent case which blocked ten 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


30 July 2015

edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Jomlini account was registered last year and has just become active again. Account has been edit warring at Allies of World War II to enforce a POV of American insignifance in the war [8] [9] [10]. This sort of POV pushing is similar to recent HarveySocks, including CharltonChiltern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) among others. His signature here also matches that of other HC socks for example because it uses a parantheses before the username. Jomlin stopped using the signature after I raised my suspicion about another account to an admin earlier today here.

Dredernly's signature also fits the same pattern as other HC socks [11] and that comment should be for itself. Calidum T|C 02:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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

As someone who has interacted a good deal with HarveyCarter socks, I can say that Jomlini's posts on his talk page and on yours don't sound anything like him. Jomlini gives the impression of not having English as a first language, and I can easily believe he is from Lapland. HarveyCarter has good English, is more aggressive in pushing his views (as opposed to complaining about being reverted), and does not use words or phrases like "shameful" or "ruining the reputation of this wiki". The signature thing was probably a coincidence, and I wish you had not put that in the public domain. Scolaire (talk) 08:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added four names: LanceCaldwell, DieterAnders, KeirMcCready and Gafbns. I agree with Scolaire that Jomlini does not appear to be a HarveyCarter sock. Dredernely made only one sour HarveyCarter-style remark, so more evidence is needed. However the four names I added have re-engaged in discussion about issues of previous concern to HarveyCarter. For instance, HarveyCarter has always been interested in the Suez Crisis and UK PMs, and here LanceCaldwell is combining UK PMs with the Suez Crisis, just as HarveyCarter's IP 92.7 had done earlier.[12] Gafbns did the same thing. Note that confirmed socks CharltonChiltern and JeremeyMurphy wrote about these same issues, Eden's health and the end of his premiership.[13][14] Another longterm goal of HarveyCarter is to put the blame on the UK for the first bombing of cities, by saying that the first bombing of a European city was by the RAF. DieterAnders says as much here. Confirmed sock Edddc made that same point here, and CharltonChiltern restored it here. Confirmed socks XavierKnightley and MrFalala both made that assertion,[15][16] as did HarveyCarter IP 92.7.[17] Finally, HarveyCarter has always been quick to tell the reader about a person's heavy smoking habit and resultant lung disease or cancer. KeirMcCready does so here,[18][19] just as confirmed sock BreckColeman did here,[20] confirmed sock DaveyJones1968 did here,[21][22][23] confirmed sock JackWildFan did here,[24] and sockmaster HarveyCarter did here.[25] Note that KeirMcCready has already been blocked. Binksternet (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm actually amazed that I'm linked to a somekind of sockpuppetry, because of what? Having a little edit war about USA, Is this what this wiki is about? If I say or want to edit something even remotely negative towards US I'm a somekind of puppet? Who or what is Harvey Carter? I don't have a slight idea who is CharltonChiltern. My IP is Finnish I doubt he is even from Northern Europe. So please can someone explain why do you think I'm somehow related to sockpuppetry? I think I have only edited to a one page about a little flag change and now I'm a sockpuppet? Seriously guys.. Calidum As I have told already, I'm from Finland so I edit mainly Finnish wikipedia not English, so what is the big surprise that my account was created in last year? This is just confusing. Sorry Scolaire and Binksternet of wasting your time on this subject about me. Calidum and I had a little argument (please check his talk page history and you can see how he didn't even answer my questions etc, just deleted them). And apparently Calidum still has somekind of anger towards me. And what was that signature thing about? Jomlini (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So I did a little reasearch and I just found out that Harvey Carter is a single person and not a insult for a people said to be a sockpuppet. When Calidum called me as Harvey in one of our conversations I actually searched Harvey in urban dictionary etc. And didn't find nothing so I thought it was a somekind of Wikipedia's "inside" insult etc. I can't believe that you guys have tracked a single person for over 6 years. Crazy. So nevertheless I'm not this Harvey and I don't understand why I would be because my edits are so simple that it is weird that you do such speculation of a little flag thing. Jomlini (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And Calidum that signature thing. I just press that tilde button and when I'm on my phone I do the tilde myself. How I'm supposed to know that there is a difference doing that? Or how can I anyway change my signature? These speculations you made are just absurd. Jomlini (talk) 00:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

8 August 2015

edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Fortescu's only edits as of now have been to articles edited by HarveyCarter socks in the most recent SPI: here, here, here and here. The edit summaries and talk page post are very distinctive. CheckUser requested because of HarveyCarter's habit of creating multiple accounts. Scolaire (talk) 12:24, 6 August 2015 (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
  •   Administrator note I have added FrancesJefferson to the list, and they were kind enough to provide me with the missing link/smoking gun, when FrancesJefferson and 2.103.232.245 edited the Eisenhower article within minutes of each other. Both accounts and the IP are blocked. Closing. Favonian (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

11 September 2015

edit
Suspected sockpuppets

SinusDrake account was created days after MoscheDanyan was blocked. Like other HC socks, SinusDrake has an interest post-WWII US and UK politics and related articles. Also uses a CamelCase username, like every other HC sock. RF has made similar edits as SD on Rainier III, Prince of Monaco (see [32] and [33]) Calidum 04:02, 11 September 2015 (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

14 September 2015

edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Tendentious editing on Easter Rising, a HarveyCarter favourite. Scolaire (talk) 11:15, 14 September 2015 (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

18 September 2015

edit
Suspected sockpuppets


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

27 September 2015

edit
Suspected sockpuppets

A new user with an interest in the Suez Crisis and CamelCase username. Fits the pattern of other HC socks. Calidum 15:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added (and blocked) Riachsby. Straight to Old King George and Ike, the edits to the latter bearing a strong resemblance to those of confirmed sock MoscheDanyan (talk · contribs). Favonian (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2015 (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

29 September 2015

edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Neither MoscheDanyan (a confirmed HC sock) and the account in question like Ike [35] [36]. Ask for a CU to identify any sleeper accounts. Calidum 16:56, 29 September 2015 (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

01 October 2015

edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Another obvious HarveyCarter sock, treading the same tired lines about how the UK bombed Germany first, so Germany was not so culpable for the Battle of Britain, the Blitz. Churchill is made out to be the evil one. FairleighJ uses the same tired source as other HarveyCarter socks, as always a misrepresentation of a Telegraph article: "Dresden was a civilian town with no military significance. Why did we burn its people?" Confirmed sock MrFalala said as much in April 2013. Confirmed sock XavierKnightley expressed this sentiment in February 2014. Confirmed sock HarryLogwood said the same thing, using the Telegraph source in early 2015. He also put this stuff into the Churchill talk page.

As always for HarveyCarter, CU is requested to check for sleepers. Binksternet (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2015 (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.   No sleepers immediately visible. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15 October 2015

edit
Suspected sockpuppets

raising same negative question about education at Talk:Tristram Hunt as already blocked Carter sock User:FerdinandFlamingo.--Nthep (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2015 (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) 17:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

31 October 2015

edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Adding contentious info to Dwight Eisenhower, something other socks have done. Request checkuser to find sleepers. Calidum T|C 15:59, 31 October 2015 (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 December 2015

edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Looks like a HarveyCarter clone given interest in WWII and post-WWII Britain, Suez Crisis etc. Suggest check for sleepers. Calidum T|C 22:38, 17 December 2015 (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

08 January 2016

edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Tendentious editing on Easter Rising and Irish Republic, two HarveyCarter favourites. Also flogging a well-known dead horse at Talk:World War II. Scolaire (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2016 (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 January 2016

edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Obvious sock is obvious. Check the edit history. Likely to be more out there too. Calidum T|C 19:52, 16 January 2016 (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
  •   Additional information needed - @Calidum: In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
  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) 20:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

01 February 2016

edit
Suspected sockpuppets

The IPs 79.67.122.20 and 79.67.107.136 took up the same argument on Talk:Appeasement which had been pushed by HarveyCarter sock User:Sdjkl1. They also edited Virgil Sollozzo. When their edits were reverted as a banned editor, they moved to 79.67.125.230, under which they edited Kirk Douglas and Virgil Sollozzo. When these, too, were reverted, a brand-new editor was created, RoddieClinwell, who also edited Kirk Douglas.

As HarveyCarter is a prolific sockmaster, a check for sleepers is warranted. BMK (talk) 20:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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

I tagged these ones. 79.67.102.69 was also blocked for edit warring. Binksternet (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Knowing nothing about the subject, would a range block be possible? BMK (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken: No, this range is extremely large and busy. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking. BMK (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

08 February 2016

edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Fits the pattern of previous HarveyCarter socks; see LoweRobinson for example. A checkuser should look for sleepers and others, per usual. Calidum T|C 16:34, 8 February 2016 (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.   No sleepers immediately visible. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

16 April 2016

edit
Suspected sockpuppets

IPs fits the pattern of previous HC socks, though he's now using IPs instead of accounts. Calidum ¤ 15:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I started this at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Harvey_Carter as opposed to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/HarveyCarter. Not sure how to fix that. Calidum ¤ 15:31, 16 April 2016 (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

19 June 2016

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Fits the pattern of previous HC socks. 109.158.178.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) also appears related, given comments at Talk:Woodrow_Wilson#Biased_throughout_World_War_I. Calidum ¤ 06:54, 19 June 2016 (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

  Blocked and tagged Clearly the same editor based on behavioural evidence. I don't think that the checkusers will connect an IP to a registered account, but the pattern is obvious. Nick-D (talk) 07:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

25 September 2016

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

CoryHilton and FGH fit the pattern of other HC socks, given his interest in WWII and Nazis in general - see Bombing of Guernica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The IP's comments at Talk:British Empire also fit the bill.

Calidum ¤ 23:40, 25 September 2016 (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

  Blocked and tagged All clearly HarveyCarter. I note that some of these accounts had been dormant for a while, so an SPI would be helpful to look for any other sleeper accounts, if this is feasible. Nick-D (talk) 01:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

05 October 2016

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

See edits at Talk:World War I. As always, I suggest a checkuser look for sleepers. Calidum ¤ 02:18, 5 October 2016 (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

  Blocked and tagged clearly this person based on editing. I agree that a checkuser run for additional accounts would be helpful given how frequently HarveyCarter is attempting to edit at the moment, though I note that one was recently conducted. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

25 November 2016

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

See [37] and these. I would also ask for a checkuser to ID any other potential socks. Calidum ¤ 02:17, 25 November 2016 (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
​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1 December 2016

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

See Easter Rising, Talk:Easter Rising and Talk:Irish War of Independence, all typical Harvey edits to Harvey articles. Scolaire (talk) 12:42, 1 December 2016 (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

05 December 2016

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Changing the name "Axis powers" in "Axis Powers" here. The IP uses more or less the same argumentation (Most sources use a capital p, just like the Central Powers in World War I.) as the blocked HarveyCarter-sockpuppet Lsnkd when he did the same here with the argumentation They were called the Axis Powers, like the Central Powers in World War I.. As a serial sockpuppeteer, a check for sleeps seems useful to me. The Banner talk 15:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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

The first sixteen digits are the same as the two IPs blocked four days ago. Scolaire (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added to two sock accounts, recently active at The Blitz in the exact manner of HarveyCarter and his other socks. Binksternet (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Binksternet: Please, also provide some evidence (preferably diffs). Vanjagenije (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. HarveyCarter persistently tries to blame the UK for getting bombed by Germany, supposedly because the UK bombed first. Here are socks Edddc and CharltonChiltern saying so.[38][39] Here's blocked sock GuntherTP pushing the same angle.[40] Here's a HarveyCarter IP address doing the same thing.[41] Here's another attempt by sock Hmunuuyvy.[42] These are of a piece with the recent attempts by the two suspected socks listed above.[43][44]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

05 January 2017

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Evidence

edit
  • Jan. 3 AndyTyner started a section at Talk:Donald Trump alleging a connection between Trump and the Irish Republican Army [45] He continued posting Jan 4 [46] and again on Jan 5 after the IP had been blocked. [47]
  • Jan 4. The IP ‪2a00:23c4:638c:4500:f875:52d7:9f51:17c9‬ posted in the same thread in a BLP-violating way causing me to block them on Jan 4 for 2 weeks and revdel most of their contributions [48] [49] [50]
  • Jan 5 (after the original IP was blocked) a new-but-similar IP 2A00:23C4:638C:4500:B0FC:5CF6:3969:12F5 showed up in the same thread [51]
  • All three use a distinctive signature style, putting an open-parenthesis before their sig. MelanieN (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2017 (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 January 2017

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

As noted above in the long term abuse page, HarveyCarter is known for trolling the British Empire article.

Shortly after joining wikipedia a relatively new editor, Alfie Gandon, started posting material in the British Empire article on Ireland e.g. Ireland being a colonial lab for the British Empire [52], Irish & British history being a regular target of HarveyCarter socks. He regularly edit warred in an attempt to force this material into the article (page is currently locked as a result). On the talk page he is frequently combative in a manner similar to previous HarveyCarter socks e.g. [53] on thread where he accused other editors of "whitewashing".

[54] An IP, known to be a sock of HarveyCarter, [55] posted a comment about the British Empire and the number of people "killed by the British".

A newly registered editor, "Quality posts here" has since appeared, posting a lengthy GA critique [56] as their first edit (clearly not a new or inexperienced editor) and is seeking to add a new section supposedly on genocide in the British Empire. [57] he also makes similar disparaging remarks about other editors on the page. He is being supported in this by Alfie Gandon.

Discussed this with my mentor Nick-D, together with BilCat and they concur that there seems to a prima facie case of sock puppetry here. Requesting checkuser on the named accounts only as a rapid means of resolving this. WCMemail 19:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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

As noted on my talk page, there are good reasons to suspect that "Quality posts here" is a HarveyCarter sockpuppet for the reasons WCM described above. However, I am insufficiently familiar with the person's editing style in this particular topic area to make a WP:DUCK block. A checkuser run or investigation by an admin with the relevant experience with HarveyCarter's editing in this field would be much appreciated. Nick-D (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sockpuppet. It is false that I have made disparaging remarks about other editors. I would never do such a thing. I don't appreciate WCM claiming otherwise. I have previously defended WCM from allegations that he coordinated the harassment of Alfie Gandon with other editors. It is not believable that I would do that if I were an Alfie Gandon sock. WCM seems convinced I am acting in bad faith despite all evidence to the contrary. I hope he changes his mind or it will be very hard for us to constructively resolve our content dispute.--Quality posts here (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

The two accounts are   Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

10 March 2017

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

More pro-Axis/anti-Allied trolling: [58][59][60]. The Operation Barbarossa talkpage has seen trolling by IP socks of this LTA, with another behavioral similarity. GABgab 20:57, 10 March 2017 (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


13 March 2017

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

WP:DUCK, same old talking points: [61][62], [63][64]. GABgab 21:49, 13 March 2017 (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
  Looks like a duck to me. GABgab 21:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
and nesting in its usual habitat. Closing. Favonian (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16 April 2017

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

WP:DUCK trolling on Talk:Operation Barbarossa, a perennial sock target. GABgab 22:29, 16 April 2017 (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 April 2017

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

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

05 June 2017

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit


Checkuser requested to root out any sleepers. Binksternet (talk) 04:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Farnubak continued with HarveyCarter's usual interest in blaming the Soviets for Germany's killing methods,[69][70] in emphasizing smoking and lung cancer,[71][72]
  • JamesFenner continued the HarveyCarter practice of slagging the British at every opportunity, in this case trying to add the UK as a belligerent in the Vietnam War.[73] Farnubak jumped in to defend this position.[74]
  • The only thing DannyAckers did wrong was to touch an article frequented by HarveyCarter. His account name is in the HarveyCarter tradition.

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 June 2017

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

IP added material to Operation Barbarossa - a usual haunt - saying that "Adolf Hitler believed that Joseph Stalin was going to attack Germany." This is very similar to another IP's talkpage post on the same topic. Both IPs are from Gravesend in Kent, and the latter IP was previously blocked as a HarveyCarter sock. It doesn't get much more obvious than this. GABgab 22:49, 21 June 2017 (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
GeneralizationsAreBad - Blocked 36 hours for block evasion. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

09 July 2017

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Same page (Operation Barbarossa), same location (Gravesend). WP:DUCK. GABgab 14:18, 9 July 2017 (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 July 2017

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Same location, pops right back up on Lech Wałęsa after the last sock was blocked: [75][76][77]. GABgab 00:07, 10 July 2017 (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
  Looks like a duck to me. Thanks, GABgab 00:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2A00:23C4:638C:D800::/64 range anon blocked 3 months. Range for last 4 months only seen here. Given the extra IP that Binksternet has added that suggests that HC has also used Special:Contributions/81.154.38.144. Closing.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

04 February 2018

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit


It appears to me possible that the brand-new editor Barb100 may be a sock of the banned editor HarveyCarter. There are not enough contribution by this editor to be certain, but the M.O. -- the denial of standard accepted historical facts (in this case about Operation Barbarossa) in order to minimize or mitigate the responsibility of the Nazis (and Japanese, in other instances) for the war. In the past, it's been saying that the US was in a state of war with Germany before Pearl Harbor, thereby justifying Hitler's declaration of war, which he was not required by treaty to do, and arguing that Pearl Harbor was not a surprise attack because the Japanese declared war just before it, neither of which are accepted as facts by historians.

This time, the argument made is that Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union was not a long-planned and deliberate attempt to achieve lebensraum for the German people, but was done only because of a build-up of Soviet troops along the border. This is almost exactly the opposite of the truth, actually: it was the Germans who were bringing in troops along the border, assuring the Russians that it was all about internal security and had nothing to do with them, and Stalin believed it, much to the detriment of his country.

The source for this theory is a fringe book by a Russian writer, Viktor Suvorov. [78], [79], [80], [81]

Of course, this report is not an attempt to adjudicate the content dispute described -- which is hardly necessary, considering that 3 editors have already reverted Barb100's addition to the article -- but instead is presented as evidence to point out the similarity of this editor's mindset to that of HarveyCarter. They both latch onto counter-factual historical theories and push them to the detriment of our articles. While certainly not sufficient evidence to apply sanctions to the editor, it is my hope that it is sufficient for a checkuser to take a look. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks very much for looking into it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:11, 5 February 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

01 April 2018

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Out of the blue, new user PatLaffan says that Leif Garrett graduated high school at age 15. HarveyCarter is very interested in the Leif Garrett article, using many socks and IPs from Gravesend in Kent and Bury St Edmunds in Suffolk. A HarveyCarter IP added this same fact to the Leif Garrett biography a year ago, that Garrett graduated at 15. The IP, Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:6392:3C00:4188:A994:6FC6:821C, has been rangeblocked as part of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/HarveyCarter. HarveyCarter is also in the habit of trolling talk pages with unreferenced statements of negativity, often making a new talk header for his comment, which IP 81.159.7.176 did yesterday, IP 86.133.85.203 did a few days ago, and PatLaffan did here and several other times at Talk:David Hogg (activist). Another link between PatLaffan and a HarveyCarter sock is the claim that Soviet gulags are death camps, using the same wording and references.[82][83] Checkuser requested to make certain, but behavioral evidence is very strong. Binksternet (talk) 00:09, 1 April 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

  Blocked and tagged This is clearly HarveyCarter. As he often registers multiple new accounts during periods of (pointless given all the edits are reverted) activity, a checkuser run for other accounts would be helpful. Nick-D (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Blocked and tagged I've blocked all these accounts other than Birtig, who I agree may be someone else. Many thanks for the rapid response here DoRD. Nick-D (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

22 June 2018

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit


HarveyCarter has a long history as sockpuppeteer and - according to the case page - uses new accounts for trolling in articles related to the British Empire. The account McStavish was only created on 21-6-2018 and in the same minute claimed that Sinn Féin did not win the 1918 in a landslide victory. A number of hours later hij makes the same claim. With the "old" parties wiped out (lost 68 seats) by a newcomer (won 73 seats) it is clearly a landslide victory. This kind of clearly incorrect edits is typical for HarveyCarter.

The checkuser request is to flush out any undetected sleepers. The Banner talk 18:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC) The Banner talk 18:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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

This is to me a super-obvious sock... There was a great deal of previous interest in this topic from HarveyCarter and his socks. The expressed POV is typical. Binksternet (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit
L235 -   Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12 February 2019

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Checkuser requested to root out sleepers for this persistent vandal. DickDurbane jumped into a talk page thread started by one of HarveyCarter's Bury St Edmunds IPs and continued by others. HarveyCarter and socks are wont to emphasize heavy smoking in a biography; here is the same stuff from DickDurbane. Another HarveyCarter quirk is mischaracterizing the Pearl Harbor attack, which he's done here with an IP talking about the embargo and the Hull note. DickDurbane added the embargo and Hull note here. Binksternet (talk) 22:52, 12 February 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

28 February 2019

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Bullishly editing Easter Rising to push a unique, eccentric POV.[84][85][86][87] Classic HC behaviour on a favourite HC article. Typical username format. Typical signature style. Requesting CU to check for sleepers. Scolaire (talk) 14:56, 28 February 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

  Confirmed with respect to the named user(s).   No comment with respect to IP address(es).

Blocked.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04 March 2019

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit


Diablo del Oeste seems to be trolling Talk:British Empire see Talk:British Empire#Suez crisis and its aftermath. As it seemed superficially similar to similar trolling by various sock puppets of Harvey Carter, I checked with Nick-D who agreed it seems pretty likely. Trolling on the British Empire is a characteristic of Harvey Carter socks see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/HarveyCarter. Nick suggest that Check-User may be required to confirm but the behavioural similarities are compelling; refuses to look at previous discussions [88], repeated accusation of WP:OR that are plainly nonsensical [89], personal attacks on contributors [90]. WCMemail 10:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I put a space in the username, there isn't one. WCMemail 10:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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

  • As noted above, I think that this is probably Harvey Carter. A check user run, or WP:DUCK behavioural compariarison by an editor with a fresher pair of eyes than me would be appreciated given that I'm not certain that this is the same person. Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

  Clerk assistance requested: Please fix.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

29 June 2019

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

same IP area as the other from the Invasion of Poland and the German declaration of war against the United States.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.180.20.239 . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.154.234.153 Jack90s15 (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP Information is identical to the one they did about pearl harbor, the recent one,Jack90s15 (talk) 23:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/81.159.82.125 https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/81.159.82.125 City: Bury St Edmunds Latitude: 52.25 (52° 15′ 0.00″ N) Longitude: 0.6667 (0° 40′ 0.12″ E) Postal Code: IP33


The pearl Harbor one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.154.234.153 https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/86.154.234.153 City: Bury St Edmunds Latitude: 52.25 (52° 15′ 0.00″ N) Longitude: 0.6667 (0° 40′ 0.12″ E) Postal Code: IP33

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

Non-stale IP blocked (again); closing. Favonian (talk) 09:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14 July 2019

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Sock of banned editor HarveyCarter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:German_declaration_of_war_against_the_United_States#%22Apparently_offhand%22? same IP area as the others from the Invasion of Poland and the German declaration of war against the United States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.180.20.239 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.154.234.153 Jack90s15 (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the new one https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/86.147.59.190 City: Bury St Edmunds Latitude: 52.25 (52° 15′ 0.00″ N) Longitude: 0.6667 (0° 40′ 0.12″ E) Postal Code: IP33

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 July 2019

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

The ip put the same thing the other Sock did and is in England to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Invasion_of_Poland&diff=904063716&oldid=904062643 Jack90s15 (talk) 16:42, 16 July 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

06 August 2019

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Classic trolling on here, in a discussion from 2012, here, unsourced, here and [91] plus a few more inflammatory edits on the pages mentioned.

See also: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/HarveyCarterThe Banner talk 19:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geolocation is wrong for HarveyCarter. Static IP, no proxy indicated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 6 August 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

29 August 2019

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

A previous IP blocked as a HarveyCarter sockpuppet made the argument "Ireland was far more prosperous and industrialised by 1916 compared to before the Act of Union", almost repeated verbatim by the current IP on the article with "Ireland was far more prosperous and industrialised by 1916 compared to 1800". As HarveyCarter has already used two different IPs today semi-protecting the article may be more useful than just blocking the latest IP? FDW777 (talk) 18:04, 29 August 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

31 October 2019

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Similar edits to other HC socks Calidum 21:13, 31 October 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

05 April 2020

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit


Same target article at George VI as previous socks and IPs.[92][93][94][95] Same style of username (two word name without a space employing Camel case)[96] and same talk page style, such as putting a signature in round brackets.[97][98][99] DrKay (talk) 14:14, 5 April 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

16 June 2020

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Similar edits as previous HC socks Calidum 17:29, 16 June 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

25 October 2020

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit


Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/HarveyCarter

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HarveyCarter/Archive#06 January 2017 An IP user [100] and known sock of HarveyCarter posted a comment about the British Empire and genocide, shortly thereafter a newly created user "Quality posts here" posted a lengthy GA critique [101] as their first edit (clearly not a new or inexperienced editor) and seeking to add a new section supposedly on genocide in the British Empire. [102] he also makes similar disparaging remarks about other editors on the page. At the time both Nick-D and BilCat agreed that the behavioural evidence was strong. At the time I included a link to another user but checkuser indicated that the two were unrelated.

Some 3 years later this account has returned to repeat the earlier attempt to have British Empire delisted as a GA article. It seems this could well be a long term sleeper account used by HarveyCarter to disrupt this article. WCMemail 18:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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

What's disparaging about the talk page comment WCM linked to?--Quality posts here (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not certain if this is HarveyCarter, but this editor's behavior is most certainly sock-like. They made 217 edits in December 2016 & January January 2017, and a handful (4) in March 2017, and then didn't edit again until March 2020, when they made 35 edits, then skipped to October and November 2020, in which they have made 61 edits. [103] That's very typical of sleeper socks, who come out of the drawer when needed.
    There's also the matter of WP:NOTHERE and WP:SOCIAL, considering that of their 318 edits, [104]) they've made more to their own user page (100 [105] then they have to Wikipedia space (54 [106]). Their talk page edits added up are fully 38.3% of their total. They appear to be here to argue rather then to improve the encyclopedia.
    While this evidence doesn't point directly to socking, or to HarveyCarter specifically, it surely points to this being an editor we really don't need or want here, and should be enough to justify a CU check. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to say that I'm now sceptical that Quality posts here is HarveyCarter. HarveyCarter tends to restrict himself to trolling, while Quality posts here's editing pattern is different. I agree that there's a risk of this being a 'bad hand' account, but of whom? It's worth noting that the British Empire FAR Quality posts here started looks like it may end with the article being delisted, which strongly suggests that the account isn't entirely disruptive. Nick-D (talk) 06:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • More mystery: the account that User:Quality posts here lists as being their previous account, (Redacted), edited from the middle of 2008 to early 2011, (Redacted) which means there's another significant gap of 5+ years between the end of that and the beginning of their edits with their current account. This, again, opens suspicions that there are other usernames to account for these very large gaps.
    On the other hand, I don't see anything in the edits of (Redacted) (if that is indeed their account - only their signing into it and editing that userpage, or a CU, can really prove that -- to indicate that either of these accounts are HarveyCarter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The other account shows where I got my knowledge of the FA process. The reason there are no article overlaps is because I have edited very few pages with this account. I was inactive since my last account stopped editing. Do you think inactivity is always suspicious? I have not edited since then. Have I been disruptive? Isn't that the most important test? "an editor we really don't need or want here" are you saying instead of posting on the talk page of British Empire (the only article I edit) I should have joined the slow-motion edit war that was taking place between other users? That would have increased my article edit count, but it would hardly be productive. Instead I decided to get outside commentary on the content dispute by starting an FAR. Have you seen the FAR? Is there anything in there by me that looks disruptive?--Quality posts here (talk) 03:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I volunteered the name of my previous account in confidence. As an alternative to emailing arbcom or checkusers, I offered for you to confidentially view my previous account name on my user page and then I would have my user page deleted. You mentioned the username I offered in confidence in your post several times, and I tried to replace it with the phrase "the alternate account". Why did you punish my act of good faith by repeating my alternate account name which I shared in confidence? Should I have emailed arbcom? Are SPI clerks incapable of confidentiality? If that's the case, it ought to be in the warning message at the top of every SPI. Sro23 seemed to state that I could disclose my previous account confidentially if I wished. At least, that's what I inferred from him saying you can email arbcom about it.--Quality posts here (talk) 04:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You did not volunteer it "in confidence", you put it on you user page, which is visible to everyone on Wikipedia. If you want to disclose it in confidence, you should have used e-mail. You've either been editing for 12 or 4 years, depending on if your story is true or not, but either is plenty of time to have learned that.
And I am not an SPI cleark, I'm an ordinary Wikipedia editor offering evidence and commentary in an SPI investigation about you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So even if it's my mistake, why be so mean about it? I thought it would be a viable way of confidentially sharing my previous account name. If I was wrong, why do you insist on posting publically what I was trying to share confidentally? You are being unreasonable here. It's certainly bad behaviour to go publically posting what someone tried to share confidentially, just because they accidently used a method that wasn't very confidential. If a friend accidently showed you something they were trying to keep confidential, would you go around repeating it like you have here?--Quality posts here (talk) 04:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think this is, Romper Room? You made a bonehead mistake, and it has consequences. Own up to your error and stop blaming others for what you did to yourself. Sro23 even mentioned using e-mail in their request to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BMK, calm down. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, someone editing my comments pisses me off. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit
I had thousands of logged in edits prior to creation of my current account. I was never involved in any kind of trouble. Do I need to disclose more details? I have never edited with a different account since I created this account. Those periods of inactivity noted by Beyond My Ken were genuine, I did not edit Wikipedia under a different account. Beyond My Ken notes I have a lot of user page edits, which is due to my aborted attempt to draft new content for the British Empire article in my userspace. I have a lot of talk page edits due to being involved in a disagreement around the content that should be in that article, which resulted in the linked FAR.--Quality posts here (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, would you mind please disclosing your previous account(s), if not right here, then at least to ARBCOM? It would help put this matter to rest, because currently you come across as someone evading a block or topic ban. Sro23 (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I attempted to log into my old account but forgot the password. I have listed the account I previously edited under on my user page [Edit: I deleted my user page now that the clerk checked the account name]. Is this acceptable to you, Sro23?--Quality posts here (talk) 01:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you, though your old account has email enabled. You could use that to regain access, that would really confirm things. Sro23 (talk) 03:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This SPI is getting off topic and out of hand, so I'm closing it with no action. Quality posts here's explanation is reasonable enough (I've redacted instances of their old account name out of respect for privacy) and it seems very unlikely this is HarveyCarter. Sro23 (talk) 04:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11 January 2021

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Same removal of Sinn Féin winning the 1918 Irish general election at Easter Rising as 86.151.111.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (currently blocked as a HarveyCarter sockpuppet) and with the same edit summary of "The Conservatives won the General Election in 1918." as this edit by 86.156.198.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (also previously blocked as a HarveyCarter sockpuppet) FDW777 (talk) 14:46, 11 January 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

03 June 2021

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit


Westerhaley is a 2-month-old account with 219 edits. As outlined on their talk page here in their short time on Wikipedia they have been involved in a number of editing disputes in which they make a change, or suggest one on the article talk page, are reverted or disputed, and then they proceed to dig in their heels and refuse to listen to the arguments and advise of other editors.

The idea that Westerhaley might be HarveyCarter didn't occur to me until their comments on Talk:Axis powers [107], in which they took positions they were similar to those expressed frequently by HC, claiming that Germany had no choice but to enter WWII because of the US's undeclared war against the Nazis.

In looking at Westerhaley's contributions in the light of possibly being an HC sock, I see edits to articles about celebrities, what admin Favonian (who is well-versed in HC's editing) expresses as "a certain disdain for Churchill", and stances regarding World War II-related subjects which go against well-accepted historical fact, such as their argument on Talk:Ernst Röhm that Röhm would not have been purged if he had "stood down" the SA, and that Hitler needed to kill him because he needed the support of the German industrialists who wanted him gone, and not -- as is accepted -- the need for the support of the German military, [108]. The adamancy with which Westerhaey holds these opinions is very HC-like, considering tht Carter uses multiple socks to make the same kinds of changes to, for instance German declaration of war against the United States, over and over and over again.

That Westerhaley is HC is not a slam dunk, but Favonian thinks it's likely to be true [109], and the evidence appears to me to be strong enough to justify a look by a CU. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My consistent thanks to Favonian, and to Zzuuzz. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:48, 7 June 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

11 June 2021

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Checkuser requested because this person is an inveterate socker.

HarveyCarter has a longstanding fascination with Leif Garrett. Bury St Edmunds IP 86.154.234.191 appeared earlier today to make sure Michelle Phillips was more firmly connected to Garrett.[110] The salacious tidbit had been added five months ago by Britt Comma Edie.[111] New account Gfd11 performed the same function but at the Phillips bio.[112] The same edit had been made by Traml12 four months earlier.[113] All of these socks have the same political viewpoints and pop culture fascination as HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

אברהסה בו, I'm not sure what you are asking. According to the skinny hairs on the back of my neck, all of the listed users demonstrated the style of HarveyCarter. This guy keeps beating on multiple dead horses, for instance Peter O'Toole not being Irish—the supposed "forgery" of Peter O'Toole's Irish birth certificate—trying to prove the absence of Irish heritage by way of a Leeds birth.[114][115][116][117] If you're asking me what to do, I would say block them all. Binksternet (talk) 02:19, 17 August 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
  Stale - no available data:
Traml12 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Britt Comma Edie (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Both confirmed accounts are   Possible to the master.   No comment with respect to IP address(es). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When examining the archive of Harvey Carter and his almost decade of editing that is recorded in the archive. It appears that he is back to using accounts to push his view, when examining what the blocked IP put[118] and what this account put it's[119] an obvious duck. That is why I undid the edits, Favonian and Binksternet what is your input on this since you two are the most experienced with this user?אברהסה בו (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Blocked and tagged per the CU findings and clear behavioral evidence; closing. Favonian (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03 March 2022

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Flybd5 made this edit which expresses a controversial view and is sourced to a blog. I decided to revert and said "You can't cite a blog per WP:RS", meaning we need a reliable source. Flybd5 objected at the article talk page in keeping with BRD but, before any discussion could take place, has restored the content in breach of BRD. They have also added extra content. Then, Flybd5 posted this at my talk page, accusing me of starting an edit war.

The additional content is controversial because it suggests that Churchill admired Hitler. For such an extreme view, we would need a host of reliable sources per WP:V but what we have been given is a blog entry and a loosely constructed piece from the memoirs of Dönitz, a convicted Nazi war criminal who would obviously seek to discredit Churchill.

I recalled a similar opinion being expressed last year by someone who was proven to be part of the HarveyCarter farm. I found it here and this one claims that Churchill admired Mussolini, which amounts to the same thing. That userid was Westerhaley whose political views soon raised suspicion that they belonged to the HV farm.

With Flybd5, the account has been open since October 2005 and there have been only 573 edits in more than 16 years. Even so, there have been problems with ANI and talk page warnings. Given the targeting of Churchill by attempting to introduce controversial material that is outside mainstream sources, and given also the confrontational tone used towards me, I think there is a strong possibility that Flybd5 is a sleeper and so I am requesting the checkuser.

I'll leave the content alone for the time being. Please let me know if I can be of further help. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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

This is hilarious! I've been participating in Wikipedia for 16 years, 13 more than the slandering accuser. An accusation of "sockpuppet" is the funniest I thing I've heard of for users to try to smear others who post fact-checked information they don't like to hear in an attempt to silence them. Anyone can look at my history and contributions. I will not comment any further on this absurd entry. --Flybd5 (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit
  • For grins and giggles, I thought I would do some in depth behavioral analysis, thinking it would be quick work to discount the claims here. At first glance, it didn't seem likely. However, looking at summaries and the link, I see some unusual patterns that are common to most of the HarveyCarter socks (via LTA page), certain Briticisms, you might say, enough that it might be worth while to shake the Magic CU 8-ball and see what it says. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The old accounts are stale. There is some data on cuwiki, and I looked in the logs, but there is nothing technical to connect Flybd5 to anything I can see. If Dennis Brown would like to expand on their observations (either here or in e-mail is fine) that might help a behavioural investigation. Girth Summit (blether) 15:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, consider it "possible, but inconclusive" based on behavior. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10 July 2022

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Obvious HarveyCarter IP 86.149.119.210 is stale by now, but yesterday for his first-ever edit JimmyTylerFan reverted back substantially the same text.[120][121][122]

Checkuser requested solely to find sleepers. Binksternet (talk) 19:04, 10 July 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

28 December 2022

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Pro forma, lots more to come -- RoySmith (talk) 20:31, 28 December 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
  • These are all   Confirmed to each other and   Highly likely to HarveyCarter; I'm tagging as confirmed. The LTA page recommends that all their edits be reverted, but I'll leave that to somebody else to run down. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10 January 2023

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

The new sock and IPs are all doing the same ol' HarveyCarter trolling nonsense about political stuff, late life illnesses, rumours of Jewishness,[123] etc.[124] The IP range Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:C410:5601:0:0:0:0/64 should be rangeblocked.

CU requested to check for sleepers. Binksternet (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added Ernest Severn who initiated a trolling post[125] at a page frequented by HC socks. Binksternet (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2023 (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

19 March 2023

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

JonathanMannton made the same edit as previous socks of HarveyCarter.[126] July 2022, May 2022, February 2022, May 2021 and more.

Checkuser requested to make certain, and to perform preventive rangeblocks as necessary. Binksternet (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2023 (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.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/HarveyCarter/Archive&oldid=1146790194"