Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HighKing/Archive

HighKing

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

07 June 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• 209.119.9.98 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Popaice (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Insectgirl (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 83.70.162.125 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 62.77.187.21 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Evidence submitted by Mister Flash

HighKing is concerned with the removal of British Isles and the majority of his edits are involved with this issue. HighKing did not edit between 3 March 2010 and 10 March 2010. On 8 March the IP 209.119.9.98, located in New York, made a series of edits all of which removed British Isles (disregard those that have taken place on 6 June). The behavioural aspects of this appear convincing on their own. In particular, this edit involves a direct interaction between HighKing and the IP.

I have further evidence, which for privacy reasons cannot be displayed here. This evidence adds to the behavioural traits mentioned, and is quite conclusive. Please advise how I can confidentially submit this evidence.

Popaice displays a similar modus operandi to HighKing, with edit summaries not reflecting the actual edit. All edits can be considered.

Insectgirl displays similar editing habits in that some edits remove British Isles as an incidental part of a larger edit. Also, If HighKing's Talk page at the time of Insectgirl's activity [1] is comapared with that of Insectgirl's [2] there are striking similarities. Insectgirl's monobook settings [3] are virtually identical to those of HighKing at the time of Insectgirl's activity [4]. WP:DUCK may apply here. Selected diffs; [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

Numerous edits by the IP 62.77.187.21 display British Isles removal without adequate edit summary, which again is a hallmark of much of HighKing's earlier editing. Note also the edits to Complex event processing and related topics, all of which fall within the area of HighKing's expertise. This IP can be directly linked to HighKing but only via the submission of confidential information. Again please advise how I might do this. Selected diffs; [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] Mister Flash (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by User:HighKing

This editor has been harassing me for nearly a year. It mostly consists of a campaign to revert my edits. His behavior has escalated since I filed an AN/I and commented on an SPI case involving the same pair of editors. Most recently he has sent me an email threatening to out an identity which he believes to be mine. Furthermore, the editor should really look up what a sock puppet actually is, because I don't see what the IP editor has done that could possibly warrant being called a sock... --HighKing (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Clearly the editor is being malicious in this request. Not sure how to respond. What exactly is the accusation? Editing "British Isles" related articles? This editor is fishing. --HighKing (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users

No idea whether this is legit or harassment, but User:LowHigh and User:LowKing appear to be related to this (and their entries in the user creation log are how I stumbled into the above report). TNXMan 20:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Those accounts are likely created by a prankster editor. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much what I thought. Both accounts blocked, no comment on anything else yet. TNXMan 20:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

LowHigh/LowKing haven't been used disruptively. I think the explanation on User talk:LowKing is truthful, albeit misguided. Should be kept indefed of course, but that's it. Amalthea 14:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The user Popaice is just as likely to be a sock of user Þjóðólfr. The others though, seem clear-cut and are almost without doubt HighKing, with or without the "confidential" information. It may be pertinent that user Insectgirl voted at WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll_on_Ireland_article_names, as did HighKing and their individual votes are just about the same - not quite, but nearly. LevenBoy (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

What edits make you conclude Þjóðólfr is involved? Amalthea 14:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

From what I recall user Þjóðólfr was interested in Icelandinc matters, so see the first edit of Popaice, and Þjóðólfr also edit warred to replace British Isles terminology. Nothing proved obviously, and it could just as easily be HighKing. LevenBoy (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/MidnightBlueMan, Mister Flash has been CU blocked. 188.28.91.250 (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This means the case here will have to proceed without "confidential" input from user Mister Flash but I think that input would only have a marginal effect on the outcome. LevenBoy (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Confidential information from Mister Flash received.
User:Popaice confirmed and acknowledged by User:HighKing.
No (significant) WP:SOCK violation. Amalthea 21:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I am Mister Flash and I have not sent you any confidential information - you did not requst it. If you had done so I would have emailed it to you (do you still want me to?) and it would have confirmed 100% that two of the IPs are HighKing (67). It's obvious to anyone that Insectgirl is also HighKing and you say he's admitted to Popaice, so if there's no sock puppetry here, then there's none anywhere and you may as well quosh my own case. 86.31.240.65 (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussing this with the user in private. Three points:

1. My mistake, the information came only indirectly from Mister Flash.
2. No comment on IPs, per the privacy policy.
3. The inappropriate use of multiple accounts was, as I said, not significant, and comes in no way close to your case.

Amalthea 22:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

---

21 June 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• 209.119.9.98 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Popaice (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Insectgirl (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 83.70.162.125 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 62.77.187.21 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Fionnghlas (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Evidence submitted by LevenBoy

This is a relisting of the case [16]. I am asking for a second opinion since it is unclear how the case was concluded. There was an apparent admission of sockpuppetry by HighKing, but no sactions were imposed and account Popaice, which seemed to be acknowledged as a sock, was not even blocked. The account Fionnghlas has been added to this report.

Many of HighKing's edits are concerned with the removal of British Isles, the latest being here. Edit summaries of this class of edits do not normally state that British Isles is being removed. Frequent edit wars have resulted from HighKing's removals and it is possible that alternate accounts and IP editing is, or was, being used to gain an advantage. Behaviourial evidence is strong in the case of all the IPs and the Insectgirl account. Checkuser may assist with Popaice and also with the Fionnghlas account, which appears to have been set up solely to revert edits of User:MidnightBlueMan on a single article [17].

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims. More fishing - this is vindictiveness, plain and simple. Odd though. This comment, asking LevenBoy to explain their relationship with previous sock of MidnightBlueMan and Mister Flash, results in this SPI filing. Distraction tactics perhaps? Odd that LevenBoy restarts editing, on the same "British Isles" articles, practically to the minute of MBM.MF being blocked. --HighKing (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users

There's alot of suspicions around the British Isles stuff. One could ask for an SPI on all involved parties. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Checkuser request – code letter: D  + F (3RR using socks and another reason)

Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by LevenBoy (talk) 13:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser may confirm once and for all whether or not sockpuppetry is occurring in this long-running issue, which has already involved the use of socks by opposing editors, and which has spread accross Wikipedia affecting many articles. LevenBoy (talk) 13:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Popaice should have been blocked on conclusion of the prior case, I have done so now. FWIW, I had asked other functionaries for input and review before closing the last SPI case. I have no problem with an explicit review though.
 Endorsed by a checkuser for second opinion, a CU can see my more verbose conclusions in the 9 June 2010 mail. Amalthea 13:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

To clarify: I am confident that my conclusion is correct, but can understand that the context of this case and the necessary Magic 8-Ball close leaves open questions. Those questions will in all likelihood not be answered. In particular you can't expect any comment on the IPs here. A second opinion will, assuming it agrees with me, only give you more confidence in the close, not more information. Amalthea 18:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm quite confused by your comments. It boils down to one simple question; is user User:HighKing, or has he at any time, been operating sockpuppets to further his agenda concerned with British Isles? Looking at the suspected socks it seems a straightforward case for Insectgirl and all the IPs, where surely WP:DUCK applies. Presumably checkuser will confirm Popaice and Fionnghlas, or not, as the case may be. I assume some of the IP edits are out of checkuser range, but others aren't, so in terms of the ip edits all we need is a statement to the effect that HighKing is, or is not, using IPs to further his British Isles agenda. I've looked at a number of sockpuppet cases involving IPs and they seem to be handled without this sort of "behind the scenes" activity. I'm a little concerned that everything is not out in the open here, and I'm not sure why. Reading comments at the archived case it seems there's a strong suggestion that a little bit of sockpuppetry is Ok and can go through on the nod. Maybe you can confirm this is not policy and that a sock is a sock is a sock, whichever way you look at it. Yes, some cases are worse than others, but so far as I understand it there's no lower limit below which the activity faces no sanction. LevenBoy (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not always that simple. I've spoken to Amalthea and I expect he'll be back shortly to wrap this case up. --Deskana (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That would not be a second opinion. Can you elaborate why this particular case is not that simple? There is one straightfoward question to answer, and it is this; has HighKing been engaging in sockpuppetry or not? LevenBoy (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I can't tell you why it's not simple. I'm well aware that there is one straightforward question to answer, but due to the checkuser and oversight policies, the community standards for checkusers, and the AUSC, the answers aren't always simple (and there aren't even answers sometimes). --Deskana (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I seem to have scared off Amalthea, despite providing direct answers to his questions (for once). I'll remind him to post here. --Deskana (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I'll close it myself then.

• Popaice should have been blocked with conclusion of the case, and is blocked now. Due to the very short time of activity of the account and the minuscule overlap with articles HighKing has edited this was only a minor WP:SOCK violation.
• As you say, "some cases are worse than others". The WP:SOCK violation in this case was not significant enough to warrant any sanctions for HighKing besides a warning.
• I note that this naming convention is apparently in wide dispute: not every editor you see changing or arguing to change "British Isles" one way or the other is automatically HighKing or MidnightBlueMan in disguise.
• I was in contact with other CUs during the case since I was new in this function, it was not a trivial case, and it was related to the MidnightBlueMan case. These are the only reasons for behind-the-scenes communication, there is no hidden, relevant information that would change the result of this case.
• The information I am allowed to disclose is dependent on the disruption caused. IP connections in particular are only confirmed or denied with some purely abusive or long-term abusive editors where it is necessary for the protection of the project, and even then only if it can't be avoided. As indicated by Deskana I simply cannot comment on some questions even if they seem straightforward. You will, I'm afraid, often have to trust my (and other CUs) impartiality, and accept that this is necessary to protect every editor's privacy, including your own.

Amalthea 10:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

---

16 October 2012

Suspected sockpuppets

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

User HighKing has recently been engaged in further edit wars concerning the inclusion of the term British Isles in various articles. During a recent war on the Six Nations Championship article a new user, Laighinleo, suddenly appeared and supported HighKing's position with this edit - [18], which was made within a couple of hours of HighKing's revert. Of interest is the new user's name; Laighin seems to be Gaelic for Leinster, and the Leinster Rugby social club has a bar called 'The Laighin Out' or something similar. Further, it appears that HighKing is a supporter of Leinster Rugby - see here [19] (section called 'Negotiation tactics'). For a brand new editor to edit an article on rugby, to support HighKing's stance, and to be a supporter of the same team as HighKing, seems too much of a coincidence. This user is undoubtedly HighKing, but no doubt operating from a different device than normal. I should think the Duck test applies here.

The case agasint User Bastun is strange and somewhat inexplicable, since HighKing and Bastun normally exhibit opposing views on many Irish-related matters. However, compare this version of HighKing's user page:

[20]

with this version of Bastun's:

[21]

They are almost identical. Furthermore, while Bastun has actually edited the articles named as North Strand and Open adoption, HighKing has not, despite listing these obscure articles on this early version of his user page. There is a clear connection between these users. Scandal Bird (talk) 11:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

This is simply a reaction to the SPI I filed against Scandal Bird earlier this morning. See here. Also, I have not engaged in edit wars on this topic as this would be against WP:GS/BI - I note that no diffs were provided to back up this statement (nor would this be possible). This is a fishing expedition with no evidence, and a reaction my opening an SPI earlier. --HighKing (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

ZOMG I am also a Leinster fan!!1!1!! But, while I am certain I am not User:HighKing, I will nonetheless expect a cheque in the post for his use of my patented userpage design ;-) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Would you take a personal cheque :-) --HighKing (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I had a look at those user pages and it looks to me that HighKing just copied a convenient user page with most of what he wanted to start up their own. The sort of thing I do rather than starting from scratch - plagiarize, let no one else's work evade your eyes. Certainly no evidence of sockpuppetry. Dmcq (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you could be right. Funny though, you'll allow, that someone should copy a page like that, change it, but leave those two items. Anyway, no matter. If Bastun and HighKing are a couple of meats the world won't stop going round, that's for sure. And another thing we can be sure of, HighKing is a sock. Be seeing you! Scandal Bird (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

They were removed shortly thereafter. Dmcq (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Note user:Scandal Bird has been blocked as sockpuppet of user:Hackneyhound [22]. Thryduulf (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

•  Clerk declined - Evidence isn't convincing. The most "sockish" looking person on this page is the actual reporting party, if we are to be honest, since filing this SPI was done exactly after they became autoconfirmed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, HighKing is undoubtedly a sock. Even someone with an IQ of zero could see that he's Laighinleo. And he's got form. See the archive. Problem is, he's escaped justice again. And that's a problem for Wikipedia, not me especially. Just look at his "main interest". As for Bastun, my guess would be meat. Bastun's probably his wife or something. Be seeing you! Scandal Bird (talk) 15:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Guess I was right, since Elen blocked the reporting party as a sock of someone else. Closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

---