Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Catface1965/Archive

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Catface1965

Catface1965 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
18 May 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Codf1977 (talk)

Following this post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities by Hoary I and a number of other editors became aware of a WP:NPOV issue at the Kingston University page.

Both these accounts and the IP addresses have been used in almost exclusively as single purpose accounts to edit Kingston University in a WP:POV way.

The links between the IP address are detailed here by Hoary.

When questions relating to the connections of the IP editors were raised (see above) the IP editor stop editing and a new account Dbasemgr69 is created and starts editing (see here) and shows a level of familiarity with WP that strongly suggests an editing history older than the account. However the first few edits of that account showed a links back to the IP editor (as detailed by Hoary at WP:COIN here).

Both Catface1965 and IP 67.84.177.67 link to the Howard Fredrics website www.sirpeterscott.com see Special:Contributions/Catface1965 and here

Then there is this latest edit by Catface1965, the tone of considered reason which is in sharp contrast to his/hers other edits - just look at the edit sums Special:Contributions/Catface1965 and comes after a 6 month wiki-brake (bar one edit to remove a talk page entry - which I will come to below) just when a consensus is going against Dbasemgr69.

As mentioned above - in January 2010 Catface1965 with this edit removed a notice about a image file Beatonsummons.jpg - a quick google points to [1], as a non-admin I am unable to confirm if they are the same file, where the file was used or what was said by Catface1965 when they uploaded it, however it may go to further underline the links between the accounts and IP addresses. Codf1977 (talk) 07:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above between 16:23, 31 December 2007 and 16:36, 31 December 2007 (a period of 13 mins) both 87.194.51.176 and Catface1965 both made 2 edits each on Kingston University three of which had identical edit summaries of "redid accurate information removed by other user.". Codf1977 (talk) 13:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I am surprised by these accusations of sockpuppetry. I have no association with any of the other users mentioned, nor of these IP addresses. I have not been editing recently on Wikipedia due to other work commitments, but returned to edit an article unrelated to the Kingston University page, i.e. [[Carlo Bergonzi], only to discover that there had, once again, been some controversial activity on the former, so I decided to try to assist with efforts to resolve the dispute.

While it is true that I uploaded the beatonsummons.jpg document, I obtained it in the first instance from the sirpeterscott.com website. Clearly, this is a legal document that is credible. That issue is, however, resolved and the document has long since been removed from the Wikipedia page. Respecting the closely spaced edits, I seem to recall that I might have copied the edit summary message simply out of laziness because I did what seemed to me to be a similar or identical sort of edit reversion. That time proximity is simply a coincidence, as I have no knowledge of that IP user.

With the passage of time, I have, I suppose, calmed down about my strong views on the subject at hand, hence the apparent change of tone. But I still believe that my support for opinions that differ from those of some editors are correct and do not reflect a WP:POV issue on my part. Whereas the same might not be said for some of the other editors, including those who have brought this sockpuppet complaint forward (and a suggestion of such against another editor of the Kingston University article. I notice that there was some concern expressed by Dbasemgr69 that allegations made by these same editors might be a violation of WP policies on using complaints to gain advantage in an editing conflict. I have no specific evidence that this is the case, but the fact that they've apparently done something similar to me and suggested the same about another editor troubles me. Catface1965 (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you feel that this is in some way a diversion from an editing conflict, I can assure you that it is not - there are some very clear and striking similarities in the editing behaviour of the 2 accounts and 2 IP's I have listed, the fact that the vast majority of the combined edits are on Kingston University or relating to that or to Sir Peter Scott the subject or content of the edits mostly, relating to Issues also reported on the sirpeterscott.com website, the linking to that website, the simulates in wording of edit summaries, not just the three above, but in general, the phrase "added information ....." is used repeatedly by all four accounts. Above all it is not for me to decided, it will be decided by an admin after reviewing all the evidence. Codf1977 (talk) 07:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who Catface1965 is and I have no involvement with Howard Fredericks. I recently came across his site on my own when researching my interest in boxing, and then looked up on Wikipedia to find more information on Fredericks, who turned out to be an amusing fellow from the looks of his Kingston related website. That's why I started to edit the Kingston University entry, cause I saw things on Fredericks' site (and its various links) that belonged on the Kingston University. But as I said, I'm also interested in other topics, especially sports. And so when I googled Fredericks, I found his website that had some things about the boxer and then went onto Internet Movie Database to find out more about the boxer's history as a movie actor, which is why I ended up editing Kid Berg's WP entry. Dbasemgr69 (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's your very first edit as "Dbasemgr69". Its edit summary is Undid revision 360282546 by Codf1977 (talk) Undid several deletions, created separate heading for Employment Tribunal cases and restored NPOV. Not the edit of a new user. Your newfound inability to remember the spelling of "Fredrics" may impress the gullible. -- Hoary (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by other users

Catface1965 has edited Kingston University, Carlo Bergonzi, and the subsequently deleted Artressa Phunding.

Carlo Bergonzi is a very familiar name. I possess boxes of LPs on which he sings; perhaps you do too. Anyone could have written about him (well, anyone whose horizons aren't circumscribed by PlayStation or similar). Nothing much to say here.

Artressa Phunding? It's explained here (or if that disappears, then here at WebCite), from which I quote: District Judge in Kingston ruled that a certain harassment conviction was entirely unfounded. A victory for free speech. Suck on this you EVIL reputation managers. When you were a little kid did you know that you would grown up to be the kind of person who enables wrong doers to commit evil acts by hiding their crimes? (My emphasis. "Reputation manager", by no means a common string on Wikipedia, seems something of an obsession of the two IPs listed above.) Googling "Artressa Phunding" and googling the same with "Howard Fredrics" produces similar sets of results; it appears that the former is some art project or whimsy or persona of the latter.

Dbasemgr69's interests extend beyond Kingston University to Jack Kid Berg, a boxer. And so? Well, to quote the article on Berg, Academic Howard Fredrics wrote an opera about Kid Berg's life. Ah.

67.84.177.67, 87.194.51.176, Dbasemgr69, and Catface1965 have remarkably similar concerns with the alleged awfulness of Kingston University, and anything beyond this has remarkably similar stylistic quirks and also remarkably similar concern for aspects of and interests of Howard Fredrics. This could of course be the merest coincidence, but . . . quack. -- Hoary (talk) 11:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Those two IPs are from two separate RIRs; for those non-techies, that means two separate continents. –MuZemike 16:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Checkuser request – code letter: ' (Unknown code )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.

Self-endorsing for CU attention. They're both clearly interested in Kingston University, and the first edit by Dbasemgr69 is very suspect, but both registered accounts editing patterns are slightly different. I am not very comfortable calling DUCK here. –MuZemike 16:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed with respect to the named user(s). no No comment with respect to IP address(es). J.delanoygabsadds 02:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both blocked indef and tagged. Tim Song (talk) 03:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Catface1965/Archive&oldid=1066424107"