Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mgkfact/Archive

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Mgkfact

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

11 February 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

These two accounts have no edit history, except on the Romford article today (11th Feb) where they have done nothing but revert edits from User:Roger 8 Roger regarding historic counties of England PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added Justgravy to the above list. It may be more appropriate to hold this investigation on Justgravy's sockpuppet investigation page. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. It is suspicious that user Riteinit began edits on Romford at the same time as user Justgravy began his edits at Bexleyheath. Justgravy has been barred before for socking. He is also a one topic editor with a history of edit warring, going back years, of Historic counties in SE England, esp London/Kent. The connection with Romford and the accused here may be coincidental, but it is suspicious. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I being dragged into this? There is nothing suspicious here. The reason reverts began at the same time is because first of all, PlatinumClipper96 began editing London area articles en masse, adding in historic counties and removing boroughs from the lead. This naturally ruffled a lot of feathers, not just me and Riteinit's (over on the Bexleyheath page Ehrenkater also sided with me) because lots of people on Wikipedia disagree with such edits and it is something that has been discussed many times over the years in various talk pages i.e. there is no consensus on these type of edits. Second of all, yes I do have a chequered past here, but I am a reformed character. I honestly feel like a newly released prisoner, I have done my time (took a long break from Wikipedia something Wikipedia itself recommended) so why do I keep having to relive the past? Third of all, I would like to call into question Roger 8 Roger’s conduct here, as I find it quite hypocritical. What I mean is that, there is a complete difference between when an editor makes an edit Roger 8 Roger does not agree with Vs Roger 8 Roger making an edit an editor doesn’t agree with, which I will outline below:
If an editor makes an edit Roger 8 Roger doesn’t agree with they will revert it, right away, saying that the editors's edit is POV or something else along these lines. If the user tries to justify their edit and reinstates it, Roger 8 Roger will straight away revert again, report the user and then order them to start a talk page section about it.
Conversely, if Roger 8 Roger makes an edit and an editor does not agree with it and that editor reverts it, Roger 8 Roger will (right away again) reinstate it and state a very simple justification (with no proof) of why they are right in doing this. i.e. guideline following, without adding a link or quote to that particular guideline. Or they will claim they are being BOLD. Roger 8 Roger will make no effort to start a talk page discussion about it and will threaten with reporting if their edit cannot stand.
What this means is that if Roger 8 Roger makes an edit that is reverted, they will make no effort to start a discussion about it. Meanwhile, if an editor makes an edit, they will revert it and order them to start a discussion about it.
All this is aside from Roger 8 Roger’s conduct on talk pages themselves. Justgravy (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the observation that Riteinit has completely dropped the folksy "tryna, tryta, ain't, coz, bro" dialect they arrived with a couple of days ago, and is now talking quite comfortably about blocking and reporting other editors. This looks like a person who was already somewhat familiar with Wikipedia. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roger 8 Roger is a bully. Threatens anyone with a different viewpoint. Ban the brute!

Lord Belbury thinks E's an expert on language, folksy dialect... Failed detective more like. I suspect Lord Belbury is another bully like Roger 8 Roger... or maybe they're the same person...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Riteinit (talk • contribs)

I'm requesting a checkuser against Justgravy, here, given how quickly these two editors have now converged on the idea of banning Roger 8 Roger. Riteinit's account was registered a few minutes before Justgravy reverted Roger 8 Roger on Bexleyheath and threatened to 'report' him, on Thursday, and made its first edit a few minutes after. Justgravy then started a talk page thread about this Bexleyheath edit, which Riteinit later joined to express agreement with Justgravy. --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do a check on Roger 8 Roger and Lord Belbury, it appears they may be the same person. If they are, ban the cretins! Signed the right honourable Riteinit (I'm not Justgravy you plum!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riteinit (talk • contribs) 11:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a bizarre exchange between Justgravy and Riteinit that took place on Riteinit's talk page yesterday afternoon. The "folksy" dialect is back! PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, this sockpuppet investigation was started just for Mgkfact and Riteinit, as these were both new accounts making similar edits to the Romford article. I was not suspicious of Justgravy at the time. Might it be more appropriate to move this investigation to Justgravy's sockmaster investigation page? Worth reiterating Roger 8 Roger's point that Justgravy's account has been active making these edits regarding Greater London for nearly 10 years now, and has a history of sockpuppetry! PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What a bunch of insecure bullies you are, you're the sock puppets! You all subscribe to the unsubstantiated nonsense about historic counties. Historic counties don't exist, that's why they're also known as former counties. They shouldn't be used as a present day geographic reference, only as a historical reference. Counties were originally created as administrative jurisdictions and have changed over the centuries. Reforms made to them by Acts of Parliament have changed some, created some, and abolished others. It seems quite obvious that you historic counties subscribers just wanna say places are in their former counties and are using this ploy to attempt to achieve that. Talk about shooting yourselves in the foot! All you're doing is downgrading Wikipedia with your unsubstantiated opinionated tripe which you try to enforce with bullying tactics. Either way you lose. Either common sense and decency prevails and you back down from your unproven position and bullying ways, or you get your way and Wikipedia is further discredited. It's already a laughing stock that many people thoroughly distrust. Which is it gonna be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riteinit (talk • contribs) 16:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I like the term 'folksy'. When it first appeared on one of Riteinit's early edits I lost any don't that he was a sock or was planted here to buddy up with JG. It's artificiality stood out a mile. Now, in case some of you are unaware, a while ago there was some distruption going on around these very same Greater London articles involving me. Someone decided it would be funny to open an acct in the name of 'Roger 9 Roger' (ie number 9, not 8).[1] This deception went on for a while before anyone, including me, realised what was happening. In the meantime I was reported for for disruptive edits by an experienced but over zealous editor. It was then that the confusion came to light, the case against me was dropped and Roger 9 Roger was found out to be a sock. To me the finger of suspicion pointed directly to JG, but no further investigation took place. At the time I found it all quite amusing, but in hindsight it was really far from amusing. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares what you like bully. You're as unimaginative as you are arrogant. And like your non existent historic counties, you're completely wrong about JustGravy... I ain't him and he ain't me. Haha, what's happened to Wikipedia... The loonies are running the asylum. At this rate Wikipedia will be about as relevant as those former counties, with bullies like Roger 8 Roger peddled their nonsense and getting nasty with anyone who don't see things their way. Reign him in mediators, put him in his place or ban him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riteinit (talk • contribs) 20:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice the change in Riteinit's language. From "bro" and "coz" to "unimaginative" and "unsubstantiated"! And not to mention the way he's now accusing Roger 8 Roger of bullying, as Justgravy has been doing for quite some time! I wonder what Justgravy's experience with Roger 9 Roger was in comparison... Talking of bullying, Riteinit found the need to take a good look through my account and start reverting my edits. I decided to take a little look through his. Seems like he's started showing some passion for the abolition of Middlesex, similar to many of Justgravy's edits over the last ten years. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

information Administrator note Blocked Riteinit initially for ew and then realised their PAs were more egregious. Currently indeffed. A CU will be good here. Thanks, Lourdes 09:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Inconclusive. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think Justgravy is involved here, but Mgkfact and Riteinit appear to be pushing the same thing.  Blocked and tagged. This behavior seems vaguely familiar, but I can't place it. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21 February 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Noticed this IP deleting the same content as User:Riteinit, immediately after Riteinit's ban. Paul ❬talk❭ 10:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Clerk note: No comment at the moment on whether Riteinit/this IP are Mgkfact, but I've blocked this IP for a week since I agree they appear to be Riteinit. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21 November 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Garfie489, like the sock accounts in the Mgkfact case, has a focus on removing historic county information from the leads of articles for London suburbs in the Metropolitan Essex and historic Kent areas. The account has a minimal edit history, having made just 60 edits since the account was created in 2008. It recently became active again on the Bexleyheath talk page (a talk page the Riteinit sock frequented, discussing the same issue), where it attempted to communicate with Justgravy by replying ([2]) to an almost two-year-old comment. This post is similar to an exchange between Riteinit and the same account on this section of their talk page, where the account communicates with Justgravy. The account tends to specifically name user Roger 8 Roger when attacking/criticising editors on talk pages, as the Riteinit sock did ([3], [4] just for instance).

The account tends to focus in its communication with other users on the town of Romford (which it mentioned on its recent Bexleyheath talk page post), which the Riteinit/Mgkfact accounts also focused on editing/discussing. Talk page contributions are similar to those of Riteinit (see [5] [6] [7] [8], all from the same talk page, just for instance).

Garfie489 recently used exactly the same argument ("major settlements like Stratford are untouched") [9] on a talk page discussion to one used by Riteinit (you're very selective about which parts of London you put your unsubstantiated historic county nonsense on. Where's Stratford's historic county") [10] to push the same opinion, also using Stratford as an example. The claim was inaccurate both times as the lead of the Stratford article has included the town's historic county, Essex, which leads me to believe the same person was behind both posts.

I suspect the same person behind the Riteinit/Mgkfact accounts is behind Garfie489. I would assume more accounts are involved, bearing in mind the confidence in editing/contributing to talk pages displayed by these accounts with so few edits between these accounts. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC) PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I agree with what PlatinumClipper96 has said. There has been a long (several years) history of interjections in the ongoing historic counties debate by an editor/s who appears almost from nowhere. The similarities in style and approach are striking. In the past, accounts have been blocked and/or suspended after investigations, including for socking, as noted above. There is an unusual interest in me as the focus of attention in many of these debates. I suspect that Garfield489 is connected with the person behind these interjections. This pattern of behavior began with user Justgravy. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Romford is the principle town in Havering. Currently it has a population 260k. The idea it has multiple people may live there, and care enough about the location to want to represent it correctly as per Wiki guidelines against those that edit war - should not be surprising. It should especially not be a justification of accusing these people of all being socks. The accusation is baseless, and realistically is simply a first attempt to remove accounts that call out on the edit wars undertaken by Roger 8 Roger and PlatinumClipper96 on multiple locations. So no, i am not a sock - and there is no justification for believing i am a sock Garfie489 (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if its right to reply here Clerk note: Moved to correct section - Just a note on Stratford. Stratford is likely the must culturally important town within East London. It held and was the center of the Olympics, is one of Londons major shopping centers, at what was recently the busiest railway station in the UK - the only other east London location thats as culturally significant would probably be Canary Wharf. Romford and Stratford however have strong transport links, with direct trains and buses connecting them - so realistically the concept two people would use them as a comparison being evidence of a sock, is the same as if two random people thought of the Elizabeth tower as the icon of London. Thats not suspicious, its actually just culturally expected.
Similarly Roger 8 Roger seems to get around as noted on historic counties. They are excessively involved in edit warring, to the point they have affected hundreds of pages and prevented guidelines being followed for multiple years. Looking through as part of this process, the number of editors that have serious issues with their "contributions" is significantly more extensive than whats listed here. As stated, historic counties are not a niche view - so reporting everyone that disagrees with them as a sock is a waste of everyones time - especially given their view is the one contrary to guidelines Garfie489 (talk) 12:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin, thank you for taking the time to review this case. Just to clarify with regard to Stratford (point number 3), my main suspicion was not of the fact Garfie mentioned that area specifically. I am suspicious of the fact both Garfie and Riteinit made the same, inaccurate claim (not made by any other editors) about that area's article, which was that historic county information was not included in its lead. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Garfie has now added this [11] to @Roger 8 Roger's talk page. Very similar to Riteinit's replies to Roger 8 Roger. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These claims are extremely dumb. There is no claim made that there is no historic county information on the Stratford page - the claim is that they have not been vandalised by edit warring in the same way. Which was entirely true - i was not stating historic information should not be included, but rather it should be included in the correct context as per guidelines. Stratford follows these guidelines, but many of the pages Roger 8 Roger and PlatinumClipper96 edit war do not. Though admittedly now looking more deeply into the history, i see this was previously attempted by PlatinumClipper96 (on multiple occasions).
Simply put, the reason you are both getting multiple people accusing you of edit warring is not because they are all socks.... its because you are constantly edit warring. As part of the reading i have done when you started this case, i feel i could happily tag at least 10 accounts that have accused either of you for edit warring in the recent past - and thats with a very brief look through your archives (which are not visible on your page). So long as you continue to edit war, you will likely continue to have people accusing you of such.... it shouldnt be surprising by now. Garfie489 (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
user:Garfield, (ping PlatinumClipper96) here is not the place to discuss this further. You can use my talk page if you want to. If you choose to, I suggest transplanting your above comment there. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Having a productive conversation with Garfie489 on Discord right now. Will take a look at this later tonight or tomorrow. @Garfie489: Could you please cut your comment down to a paragraph maximum? (Reiterating what I said over VC that all we care about is whether you're a sock, not about the merits of the dispute.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having the same POV doesn't prove sockpuppetry, unless it's a very niche POV. Strong opinions about historical counties of the UK, whatever the strong opinions, are not a niche POV, at least not among the kind of people who edit Wikipedia, who often have strong interests in how things are categorized. I see only three pieces of evidence as going beyond proving shared opinion: the focus on Roger 8 Roger, the focus on Romford, and the focus on Stratford.
    1. It appears that Roger 8 Roger is very active in the topic of historic counties of the UK, and participated in Riteinit's Talk:Romford/Archive 1 § Romford is in London not Essex, and no, historic counties don't exist. 11 days beore Garfie489. On the one hand, that shows that Garfie showed up to a Riteinit thread out of the blue (see early edits). On the other hand, it gives a pretty plausible explanation for why these two editors would both have a strong interest in Roger 8 Roger's differing opinion on this topic.
    2. I see no reason to disbelieve the claim that Garfie is from Romford.
    3. Romford and Stratford are near each other, so it's not implausible that two editors might make that comparison, but more importantly, Riteinit made the comparison in a discussion Garfie was in, so it's not really surprising that Garfie made the same comparison later.
  • In summation, I see enough similarities that I think it was reasonable to bring this to SPI, but I do think this is a coincidence. This analysis is not based on my interactions with Garfie off-wiki, as I've seen sox before who are very convincing at playing the newbie in off-wiki settings, and if you mention to me off-wiki that you're currently at SPI, I reckon I'm more likely to indef you than to side with you; but to avoid any appearance of favoritism, I will leave this as a purely advisory comment for the next clerk/admin. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 12:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Tamzin. no Closing without action. This does not preclude a future report if there's significantly more tangible evidence. MarioGom (talk) 12:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mgkfact/Archive&oldid=1126550600"