Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Willard84/Archive

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Willard84

Willard84 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
19 December 2014
Suspected sockpuppets


Made a few nonsensical edits on Caste system among Muslims.[1]-[2] Very soon, after receiving a warning for making these disruptive changes, he went to edit war with his account[3]-[4] that he has barely ever used, and last time used in 14 November 2014. That's obvious abuse of multiple accounts over nonsensical content and whitewashing. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


I accidentally made edits without logging in. Ooops! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willard84 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I used this account was less than ONE month ago, and you're saying I "barely" use this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willard84 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 19 December 2014‎

You have evaded 3rr rule by reverting 4 times for your nonsensical changes on this article. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

05 July 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Despite blocked for block evasion[5] on June 3 and warned before for final time "It is not acceptable to use an account and an IP on the same article,"[6] by a CU before. for socking with IP, he seems to be continuously edits same articles[7][8] with both account and IP way too frequently and sometimes for evading 3RR.[9][10][11] Capitals00 (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

This isn't an issue of sockpuppetry. I make hundreds of edits on my phone, and my phone sometimes logs me out unexpectedly, and it isn't obvious until I make a large edit which requires a captcha code.

I also don't use "mobile view" on my phone, and prefer the desktop version on my iPhone. The text is quite small, and unless I look in the very top right, it doesn't show if I'm logged in or not. It's only the mobile format page which says gives the option of logging in before the edit. The desktop format does not, and again, I use the desktop format on my iPhone because I like to see the entire page as it would be displayed on a desktop rather than the collapsed individual sections which are displayed on the mobile format.

When logging in, I also sometimes get a message stating that the login has been prevented to stop "session hijacking," whatever that means. When I'm at my computer I'm always logged in, which is why the IP addresses capitals00 noted are only for mobile edits. (Again, mobile edits but using the full desktop view on my phone) There is more than one mobile IP address listed, but this isn't an indication of malintent. I don't even know how to change an IP address on a phone, and is likely automatically done my cell-phone provider depending on where I am at any given moment.


Regarding the warning about using IP addresss to avoid scrutiny, Capitals00 failed to mention that it clearly said this "It is not acceptable to use an account and an IP on the same article, or the same topic area, unless they are publically and plainly disclosed". As you can see, I've plainly disclosed my edits when I notice they're being made after my phone inadvertently logs me out:

  • You can see here on 5 July at 16:12 that I very clearly state the edits under the mobile IP were made by me: 16:12, 5 July 2017‎ Willard84 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (85,108 bytes) (-8)‎ . . (Last edit was made by me. Phone logged me out and gave my mobile IP as the username)

^ Argh my stupid phone logged me out. I made the edit on the page. Willard84 (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Although I deleted it because I replaced the mobile IP signature with my own screename, and so I thought the acceptance of the edit was no longer necessary after I signed it Willard84 - thereby taking full credit for the edits made)

  • Here again you can see me take credit for edits made while experiencing technical difficulties: 16:24, 1 July 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-453)‎ . . Lahore ‎ (→‎Post-Mughal: this letter is irrelevant to Lahore. Add it to Ragubathrao's page if needed. Other info has NOT been deleted. Just this lengthy and irrelevant block quote. -Willard84. (Phone isn't logging me in()

That last edit came from the IP that Capitals00 falsely alleged that I had used in order to avoid the 3RR rule above - an accusation which is incongruent with the fact that I clearly accepted credit for edits made under that mobile IP. And the user whose edits i reverted User:PolandHistoryProf ironically exhibits sock puppetry behavior himself (the account appeared to have been created with the sole intent of re-introducing a lengthy and irrelevant block quote. No other edits besides that one single day).


The fact that I continue to edit the same article while logged in and out isn't evidence of misdeed. There is nothing even controversial that I added to the Ranigat page that Capitols00 cited as an example of intended sock puppetry - it should be obvious that im not evading anything. I didn't even notice I had been logged out. There's no reason for me to have evaded anything - the page was short, badly formatted, and judging by the change log, rarely visited. I further added nothing controversial to the page at all, which is also why the allegation of sock puppetry is inappropriate. Puppetry is meant to abuse the system to make it seem like there's more support for a position. I had no reason to deceive since the page wasn't even a hot topic issue at all. All I did was clean up grammar, add some uncontroversial info, and changed out a picture.

I think Capitals00 is confusing technical difficulties with purposeful evasion. Sockpuppets intend to deceive. The criteria for opening an investigation clearly states the user opening the case must "explain how the accounts are being used abusively." I don't think he demonstrated this, because I wasn't abusing anything. Had I intended to abuse/deceive, I wouldn't claim credit for those edits.

It's also worth noting to reviewers that Capitals00 disagrees with my edits on several pages including Lahore, Sabarmati Express, among others, including a lengthy debate on Talk:Godhra train burning. The block he mentioned on June 3 is also completely irrelevant to allegations of sock puppetry, and was indeed in reference to the 3RR rule, which I did not dispute. I'm not sure if the opening of the case is related to these disputes, but the possibility that this is a petty way to "get back" at me can't be excluded.

I apologize for editing when my phone logs me out without me knowing. When I discover im logged out, I log back in, and take credit for relevant edits. Sometimes as on the Ranigat page, I don't even know I'm logged out (as I use desktop format on my phone).I try to stay on top of it, but when you make as many edits as I do (over 7700), things happen. 

Willard84 (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Capitals00: I think you need to beef up your explanation a bit, preferably by showing one or more of the following:
    1. The IP editing an article while Willard was blocked (or vice-verse)
    2. The IP and Willard voting in the same discussion
Otherwise, it's not really a SPI issue. pbp 17:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

@Capitals00:, Bbb23, thanks will do. Willard84 (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC) UTC)[reply]

28 April 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

Khanrak made only 1 edit in 2011 and became active from 31 March 2018, and has only 97 edits with 22 on WP:ANEW where he was reported for edit warring. He has made same edits as Willard84 and has been engaging in same WP:BATTLEs, edit warring like Willard84.

Typically makes dozens of edits for posting something that everyone else can do with only 1 or 2 edits.[12][13]

  • On Taxila, he is censoring mention of the important sentence, " Others do not consider it a university in the modern sense," from the lead,[14] like Willard84.[15]
  • Censoring the mention of "Lava" from infobox of Lahore, by calling it a "tradition", "traditional".[21][22][23]
  • Phrases:
  • "how aggressive these two editors are"[43] and "how aggressive these editors are".[44]
  • "to be reprimanded for"[45][46]
  • "tandem to get me blocked"[47] and "failed to get me blocked"[48]
  • "a quick google search"[49][50][51]
  • "And let’s not forget that"[52][53]
  • "in order to push his personal POV"[54] and "in order to push his own POV"[55]

Clear WP:DUCK. Capitals00 (talk) 07:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

It's also worth mentioning that Willard84 and Khanrak are the only editors who spell Capitals00's username as "Capitols00".[61] See also,[62][63] Clearly, it's him. MBlaze Lightning talk 08:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


07 May 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

Restored version[64] of Willard84[65] and his sock[66] by providing a bogus edit summary.

Willard84 has history of socking on this article as IP and getting blocked for that.[67] Capitals00 (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

24 January 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

Desperate with Lahore[68][69][70]. Misuses edit summary option for sharing his propaganda while making dummy edits on Lahore [71][72]. Clear ducky duck. 112.134.66.213 (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC) 112.134.66.213 (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

02 February 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

@Bbb23 and Vanjagenije: See the SPI on 24 January for behavioral evidence. This IP never went stale but it is still editing.[73] Kindly consider blocking it for block evasion. 112.134.68.35 (talk) 06:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

14 July 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


Alishernavoi is editing same articles and sharing same editing pattern as Willard84, often editing those articles where the major editor was only Willard84.

 Looks like a duck to me. Srijanx22 (talk) 08:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: Then there is no doubt that this is a sock of Willard84. Can you issue the block? Srijanx22 (talk) 12:02, 22 July 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

14 October 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


Created new sock just 2 days after last one was blocked 27 August. Script addition on Charsadda,[94][95] lead modification at Dalbandin,[96][97] script addition on Mingora,[98][99]  Looks like a duck to me. Srijanx22 (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah and Girth Summit: Srijanx22 (talk) 09:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some more similarities for behavior analysis:

Srijanx22 (talk) 02:19, 19 October 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

  •  Check declined by a checkuser - Everything is stale, this will have to proceed on behavior alone. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is some CU log data, but I don't think CU is justified here. There are behavioral differences here, such as ThatDohDude occasionally saying "Baluchistan" instead of "Balochistan" (the past socks seem pretty consistent with "Balochistan"), and (to my uneducated Western eye and ctrl-F) they appear to be using different Urdu names for Charsadda. There is significant overlap, but it's plausible to me that both are just interested in India/Pakistan geography. Closed without action. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Willard84/Archive&oldid=1076818328"