Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Richard Daft

Richard Daft (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date January 13 2010, 13:58 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Dweller
[edit]

Account Richard Daft indef blocked in Jan 2008. The others seem to pass the duck test. Might need CU, but I'm inexperienced in CU matters. --Dweller (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: since opening this, I've uncovered droves more suspicious IP addresses. I presume they're disposable. This history log for example, is riddled with potential hits. --Dweller (talk) 14:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Without wishing to be facetious this 'investigation' has the odour of the Thought Police about it. I have been denounced as a disruptive element and must be purged. I'm afraid I don't know what Sockpuppetry is and if I'm honest, I don't care. WP is an open element - some people write brilliant things and others bad. I simply do not like things that claim to be good when in fact they are by any reasonable standard two and two making seven. HughGal (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC) The more I read the language employed within this section, the more ridiculous it sounds. I am the accused. ! I'm afraid a court conducted by made-up aims is, is it not - faintly ridiculous. Incidentally, this is a university department and at the last check, most of us were banned or whatever it is.HughGal (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged; behavioral evidence suggests that suspected sockpuppets are indeed the same. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date February 16 2010, 22:13 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]
Evidence submitted by Atama
[edit]

MariaSpawasser is a brand new account, but their first, and so far only edits were to make allegations that User:JamesJJames was a sockpuppet of User:BlackJack here and here (with some follow-up comments at WP:ANI). I was trying to figure out what could have possibly spurred bizarre behavior from a brand new editor, so I looked closer at the merits of the accusation.

BlackJack has indeed been blocked for using multiple accounts. After BlackJack's block, JamesJJames became active after being inactive for well over a year to comment here and here about User:HughGal and User:Fieldgoalunit, two accounts that are now confirmed sockpuppets of Richard Daft. JamesJJames followed up those comments with a report at ANI.

MariaSpawasser's allegations have since been proven true at a different SPI, however I believe that those allegations were brought forth as retaliation for JJJ's actions above. It's obvious that MariaSpawasser is a sockpuppet of somebody, and I'm guessing that the person behind this is Richard Daft. I'm requesting CU to see if my suspicions are correct. -- Atama頭 22:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Atama頭 22:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Thank you for confirming my suspicions. I've blocked the editor indefinitely as a sockpuppet account created for block evasion. -- Atama頭 17:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date March 29 2010, 07:20 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]
Evidence submitted by BlackJack
[edit]

User:Richard Daft is again evading his block and active on the site by still harping on the same old themes which amount to a personal attack and are designed to disrupt the work of WP:CRIC. He is using both User:Rosebank2 per this diff and an IP address 88.108.14.15, under which he has made four edits yesterday. Would you please block Rosebank2 indefinitely and also put a 48-hour block on the IP address, which is a dynamic BT address.

Rationale is that Rosebank2 and the IP address both pass the WP:DUCK test in relation to Richard Daft and his various other accounts.

See also several posts today by Rosebank2 which confirm the DUCK test. --Jack | talk page 21:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Apologies if I have not done the form right. Please correct it as necessary. ----Jack | talk page 21:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence submitted by AssociateAffiliate
[edit]

All are involved in a dispute with the User:BlackJack and are now posting comments on my Usertalk, taking the disagreement there. BlackJack is not the problem, it is the unwelcome comments from the reported IPs and known socks. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
[edit]

Add 88.108.13.111 to the list as well. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SOCKMASTER SpitfireTally-ho! 21:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And merged from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/88.108.59.160 SpitfireTally-ho! 20:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Rosebank2 indefinitely blocked and tagged, 88.108.0.0/18 blocked 1 week. –MuZemike 19:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 11 2010, 17:44 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by BlackJack
[edit]

Rosebank2 was clearly associated with the various IP users and blocked indefinitely on 5 April per this SPI. Rosebank2 was active from 28 March to 2 April.

Today, I received this mail from Citylane who joined the site on 29 March and has mainly concentrated on music articles. Citylane also sent this missive to WT:CRIC which has been a frequent target for Rosebank2 and all the previous incarnations of User:Richard Daft. Compare that post with this one by Rosebank2 and I think I can hear the WP:DUCK quacking again.

This is especially so when you read this post where he says he is going to Turkey, while Citylane says in his above post to me that "the original Richard Daft is in Turkey until early May" and "Rosebank2 - not the same person". I wonder if they have gone to Turkey together?

I admit I was thrown off scent by the PWT signature at the bottom as this indicates that another person is writing. He is frequently mentioned by Daft/Rosebank (e.g., he quotes him in this edit). So, I thought at first that here was a Daft ally but now I am convinced that it is Daft all over again ad nauseum. It is the same tired old theme and the same poor grammar and spelling mistakes that we always see in his inputs. Quack, quack!

An interesting coincidence is this post in which Rosebank declares he was in Poland last month while Citylane edits Wroclaw and its talk page, making spelling mistakes in both (e.g., Jaunary). Quack!

And then there is this edit summary in which Citylane invokes the "distinguished" Keith Warsop who is such a favourite of Rosebank as per this edit and several others by earlier incarnations.

Despite my earlier doubts, I now have no doubt at all that Citylane and Rosebank are one and the same; and both of them are Richard Daft all over again.

Given that I did have a doubt about Citylane, I think you should run the checkuser first to see if you can match Citylane with Rosebank or the IPs. However, if you think all the WP:DUCK evidence is enough, then please just apply a permanent block per all the other Daft instances. ----Jack | talk page 17:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by --Jack | talk page 17:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk note: Moved from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Citylane --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk declined After a thorough review of the given evidence and comparing to archived socks, I see distinct similarities in grammar, phrasing, and contribution style. Combined with the seemingly personal vendetta against User:BlackJack,  Looks like a duck to me and I don't see a need for a checkuser. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • information Administrator note Citylane blocked indefinitely. IPs seem to not have edited in a while, so I didn't feel the need to block any specific range. NW (Talk) 19:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date 17:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]
Evidence submitted by BlackJack
[edit]

Yet another set of invectives from Richard Daft. Please compare the edits with the recent ones by User:Rosebank2 and User:Citylane and you will see that the WP:DUCK is as loud as ever. Note especially the references to User:AssociateAffiliate as "mental". In this post he confirms that he made this taunt (see previous SPI re Daft) and then claims that he was being "temperate". This sort of taunt is right out of order and you have to remember that when he first blocked, one the main reasons was that he threatened someone.

I have requested on WP:LTA that the IP range used by this person (i.e., 88.108.x.x) should be blocked long-term to stop him using the site at all. Is it possible to do that via this process?

Thanks. ----Jack | talk page 17:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

++Abuse++ You will note that the intemperate language is used by Blackjack. Whilst I have(The posts are my evidence) tried to question the reliability of his site, he has replied with aggressive language and childish ill thought out replies which do not seem to me to be that od someone who deserves to have his own long time ban lifted.88.108.30.208 (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

information Administrator note Account blocked and tagged. 88.108.0.0/18 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) blocked for 1 month. Tim Song (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
11 September 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Per a comment placed on my talk page. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2011 (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 September 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

A similar IP left a personal attack on my talk page last week, the IP was reported as a sockpuppet of User:Richard Daft and was blocked for a week. This IP (which is without a doubt the same person) has left an abusive message on WT:CRIC attacking WP:Cricket members (see here). Also on the IP's talk page the user has revealed a previously unknown sock puppet account - User:KestevenBullet. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2011 (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]
21 October 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Following the personal attacks on AssociateAffiliate in September, the KestevenBullet account has been reactivated recently with personal attacks against me on my talk page and on WT:CRIC. In addition, an edit war has been commenced on these articles after initial edits were reverted for valid reasons around WP:CITE and WP:PRIMARY:

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft/Archive for September cases. There is no doubt that KB is Richard Daft (passes WP:DUCK as per all previous identities) given his targets which as always are articles on early cricket, WT:CRIC and myself personally. I have already written to WP:ANI about this but am not sure it is the right forum so have brought the case here according to instructions there. Please let me know if more information or evidence is needed. --Jack | talk page 19:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

information Administrator note Abusive sockpuppet per WP:DUCK. Accounts blocked and tagged. Moondyne (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

29 October 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


See this diff posted on my talk page 26 October. It was almost immediately reverted by User:Dweller who must have seen it on his watchlist; Dweller then blocked the IP for harrassment (see the IP talk page) and quoted WP:DUCK which is precisely what applies here as the post is a continuation of recent abuse submitted under the now-blocked User:KestevenBullet. --Jack | talk page 04:43, 29 October 2011 (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 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


See contribs record of both userids which were newly created on 31 Oct 2011 for purposes of vandalism and personal attack; WP:DUCK test confirms it is Daft again and the abuse directly follows on from User:KestevenBullet having been blocked indefinitely; action has been taken already by two admins so this is entry is really for the archive only --Jack | talk page 15:20, 31 October 2011 (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 November 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


This IP started today and is clearly a continuation of the Daft campaign per WP:DUCK. This time an attempt was made to address one point he had raised because it seems there has been an error in the secondary sources used but it has all resulted in the usual ranting and incoherent tedium. See the IP talk page for all the edits and talk page posts. It seems one of the admins has already taken action; certainly the articles impacted have been reverted. One more for the collection. ----Jack | talk page 15:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC) --Jack | talk page 15:29, 3 November 2011 (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 November 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Further block evasion by User:Richard Daft. See this diff for the evidence. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 10:52, 5 November 2011 (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 November 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


WP:DUCK applies as usual in the case of Daft who is still harping on about the same subject raised in his last three or four incarnations. This time he is claiming to be a real person, i.e., Peter Wynne-Thomas who is well known as a cricket writer, and so I would ask if this contravenes WP:BLP in some way? See all four contribs made today and also note the style of writing and the numerous errors, which a seasoned writer like the real PWT would not make but which are typical of Daft. Given that one member of WP:CRIC has suggested WP:AGF on this occasion, I am inviting all CRIC members to contribute to this discussion and say if they think the WP:DUCK test has been proved yet again. --Jack | talk page 19:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Comment. This alleged sockpuppet has made only one substantive edit and that has been acknowledged as a reasoned and correct edit; he has also contributed in measured tones to the WT:CRIC discussion page. While User:Richard Daft has a history of sockpuppetry and personal abuse, WP:AGF surely demands that we should not assume this new user to be a sockpuppet unless there is evidence. The real Peter Wynne-Thomas is a notable cricket historian: if this user is indeed him, he could have much to offer WP. If not, and he is a sockpuppet, then past history suggests he will reveal himself through an injudicious edit at some point very soon. Johnlp (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

As already posted at WP:ANI, the following are  Confirmed as each other:

I don't know if they're related to Richard Daft, and I cannot check that. I have already blocked all six accounts as it is clear that the socks were being used for disruptive/harassing purposes. –MuZemike 22:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MuZemike - can you please explain why the above six are blocked. It is not against wiki policy to create multiple accounts as long as they are not used for disruptive stuff. Pardon me if it is for deleted posts that I cannot see. But otherwise there is no proof that they are socks of Richard Daft. They are not used for doing anything bad either. Apart from a few posts in the dispute resolution, they have not even edited in the same topics. For all we know, they are people working in the same office and share an IP address. Also, if there is no proof that they are Daft, why are they tagged as Daft ? Tintin 08:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Daft's focus is on cricket, which is what User:Peter Wynne-Thomas, User:Fullersomething, and User:TheWagonMound have edited on. All 6 accounts were created one right after the other. There was also an attack page created by Fullersomething against a Wikipedia editor specifically. Combine that with all these users are on an IP range previously used by Daft (as well as the same ISP), and you will find that this is probably Richard Daft we're looking at.
Also, keep in mind that that it is blockable if multiple accounts have been used for deceptive purposes – given the attack page and everything else above, the only conclusion I could come to was that someone here is being disruptive and is socking. –MuZemike 08:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will also add that KestevenBullet (talk · contribs) (previously blocked as a sock of User:Richard Daft) is a very  Likely match to the 6 blocked accounts above. –MuZemike 08:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14 November 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


WP:DUCK applies again per all previous Daft cases. See actions already taken by admins to revert edits and protect pages. --Jack | talk page 12:21, 14 November 2011 (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 November 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


WP:DUCK and a continuation of recent Daft inputs to WT:CRIC with unacceptable behaviour in the posts to The Rambling Man especially. Already indef blocked but the userid is added here to complete the record. --Jack | talk page 18:50, 17 November 2011 (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 December 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Per comments on my usertalk and reverts to information he believes he is a sole authority in. Seems Daft by IP numbers is evading his ban! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2011 (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 February 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


This is yet another example (WP:DUCK loud as ever) of Daft following his usual line of insisting that he alone is the subject matter expert where early cricket is concerned. In one case, he even claims to be the editor (he has always made it known that his real name is Mark Asquith) of a reputable journal listed in the sources but, fortunately, I have the issue in my possession and can absolutely verify that the editors were as given in the article before his "amendment". I have reverted all disruptive edits using WP:DENY – e.g., where he has removed content or introduced nonsense; but, to be fair, I've left alone anything that is merely a syntax improvement. Given his long-standing record of disruption and block evasion, the only solution can be an indefinite ban for his current IP address. --Jack | talk page 19:59, 16 February 2012 (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 April 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


I received this message on my talk page and removed it because it is clearly a personal attack against another editor. There was a brief follow-up and my curiosity became aroused so I decided to accept the invitation in the original message to "follow back" and view previous correspondence. I discovered that the signatory T M Asquith is well known among members of the cricket project for persistent "trolling" and the trail led me to this "Richard Daft" archive. Given the iterated attack on User:BlackJack and the similarity of content and style in earlier examples which are in the archive, there can be no doubt that it passes your DUCK test and is the same troll attempting to cause the same trouble and evading a long-term block. I suggest that the IP address is blocked and added to the archive. Please advise if you need more but I am not used to the procedure and it does seem a very cut and dried case. Jim Hardie (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2012 (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]

Unfortunately, the IP hasn't edited in about a week, so it's likely that Daft has moved on to another IP by now. No action taken here, but this will be archived, so this IP will be listed on the archive page. --MuZemike 00:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

14 April 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


See the 86.155.74.151 contribs page of this IP. It is a definite continuation of the recent case involving IP 81.153.177.145 which is now in the Daft archive. The customary personal attacks meet the WP:DUCK criteria. Please note that the case has additionally been reported to WP:ANI because of the more serious offences of WP:OUTING and blanking an entire article. Please impose an immediate block as the vandalism occurred within the last twelve hours. Jim Hardie (talk) 08:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

81.153.177.145 geolocated to Oswestry, Shropshire on 14 April and the Daft log indicates that Shropshire is the troll's normal habitat. But, the IP now geolocates to Aberystwyth, Wales, so presumably the troll will have a different IP should he resume his pointless activity. The troll used the two 109-series addresses in between 81.153.177.145 and 86.155.74.151. The 109s geolocate to a Yorkshire hotel and are no longer in use but should be added to the archive for their contrib pages. --Jim Hardie (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2012 (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]


15 April 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

This IP user is evading a long-term block placed on the account Richard Daft. This user has been having a near constant dispute with User:BlackJack over the last few years, which every now and then spills over to the cricket projects talk page, as evidenced here. I have ignored a previous message on the projects talk page, but now it is becoming disruptive. Certainly passes WP:DUCK as being associated with Daft. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2012 (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]
07 May 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

This IP has randomly commented my talk page asking where User:Richard Daft works. Only Daft would be interested in making such a request. Quacks like a DUCK evading a block to me. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 11:13, 7 May 2012 (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]

One edit from a few days back. I'll mark for close, but if more activity occurs, please re-report. TNXMan 14:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

20 May 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Daft is now subject to WP:BAN (and about time too) but these three recent outbursts need to be added to the archive for completeness pending further action. Thanks. --Jack | talk page 22:35, 20 May 2012 (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]

information Administrator note I've blocked the named account (JohnLeachismymate) as a suspected sock, easy DUCK. Will let the clerks/CU decide if any further action is required. —SpacemanSpiff 19:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


27 May 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

See previous sockpuppet investigations. WP:DUCK should do it! Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2012 (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]
02 June 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Obviously another incarnation of Daft, only this one seems to be suffering some form of schizophrenia. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2012 (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 June 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

See contribs which confirm that these are Daft again per WP:DUCK. Note that WP:BAN applies here. --Jack | talk page 18:03, 14 June 2012 (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]

VictoriaDiscount, PlagiarismJohn?, and Sdspsg are blocked and tagged. Picciniq remains unblocked.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you double-check Picciniq, please? I don't think that was actually blocked although a tag has been applied. Thanks. ----Jack | talk page 04:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Picciniq is blocked also.[1] ∴ its OK to archive this. Moondyne (talk) 06:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


17 June 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


More WP:BAN evasion by Daft. Contribs comply with WP:DUCK as continuation of everything in the SPI archive. Note IP has been reported to WP:AVI with request to block. All edits to date have been reverted. --Jack | talk page 14:18, 17 June 2012 (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]
20 June 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

New account, which has only commented on an ongoing dispute between User:Richard Daft and User:BlackJack. Easily passes WP:DUCK to me, besides Daft has a track record in creating socks, with the mix of accounts and IPs now approaching 70. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 11:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Note that Daft's first two edits with this userid have already been reverted by other parties. At the time of writing, his posts on WP:ANI remain because additional comments were requested. His use of ANI is another tactic in his long-term aim to drive me and other WP:CRIC editors off the site as can be seen in the Daft SPI archive. Note also that Daft is continuing to evade WP:BAN as pointed out by The Rambling Man in the ANI discussion and everything he writes on WP should be removed. ----Jack | talk page 12:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
21 June 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Edits made to my talk page, which I have reverted per WP:BAN. Quacks like a Daft duck. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added User:Bibbbobbbabb as this is a new account which has started editing articles which User:Richard Daft is in dispute with User:BlackJack over. One of this accounts edits is to the talkpage of an article BlackJack has worked on, making personal attacks against him. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have just added 109.144.223.22. See the depths of sickness into which Daft has descended this time. ----Jack | talk page 14:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added 217.39.6.145 per this edit. On the page for archival reasons only, blocked today. Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 15:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto re 217.39.9.99. ----Jack | talk page 17:40, 26 June 2012 (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 are related, noted by a checkuser:
20 July 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Already blocked, added to complete list. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2012 (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]
21 July 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Per edits made to my user page and wikiproject cricket's talk page by 109.144.189.142. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 09:09, 21 July 2012 (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 August 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Well, just when I thought I had seen the last of Daft. I have recently created a stub on the cricketer Basil Rought-Rought, whose talk page has attracted a comment from an IP editor. Now what are the chances of a random IP finding this new article on a fairly obscure cricketer? Well, I thought this isn't going to be enough to go on. However, having looked at the sockpuppet investigations for Daft, I noticed the last SPI dated 21 July is an IP 109.144.189.142, which is about as close to this IP as you can get. Now sounds remotely like a Daft duck evading a ban. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2012 (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]
  • Maybe, but this is a cellphone IP, which constantly rotate so blocking would be useless as there is no way he has the same IP now. The low number of edits makes it difficult to be certain that this is the same person, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
06 September 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

An IP, also included above, highlighted a typo error on my part on the article Charles Jones (cricketer, born 1853), by correcting the typo on that page. The IP has only edited cricket related pages, making mostly from what I can see disruptive edits, such as here and some other articles included here. The IP edited the article on Charles Jones at 07:00 (see here), while the account under the name of User:Blurtonmain was created 4 minutes later at 07:04 (see here). The accounts only edits to date have been to comment on WP:CRIC's talkpage, highlighting the typo the original and mostly disruptive IP had discovered. To me, the chances of the two not being linked are remote, it seems like a duck unable to cover its tracks all that well in evading a site ban. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Tagged where appropriate. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
06 January 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

All of these have made contribs that are designed to disrupt articles and abuse or harrass genuine editors. The pattern is a direct continuation of everything in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft/Archive with same targets especially User:AssociateAffiliate and User:BlackJack; plus wilful disruption of the WP:Cricket project. The IP addresses have either been banned already or else they are no longer in use by the culprit, but they need to be recorded here so that the archive is complete. User:BDOPAF needs to be closed down as it is being used for evasion of WP:BAN. The message to F&A which he has deleted and reported to WP:AN/I proves conclusively that BDOPAF is a bogus userid set up by the troll. In all these cases, the WP:DUCK test is a clear pass. Old Lanky (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2013 (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 February 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

See recent history of Bodyline article and also other posts by these "contributors". Daft , Daft and who else but Daft. QUACK, QUACK, QUACK!!! Old Lanky (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Having withdrawn my previous comment, I now think this SPI should be closed with no action taken, especially as no diffs were provided. I think the case was raised in haste and I'm not convinced it is fair as Cdomm has shown good intentions. There was nothing wrong with his input to Bodyline although another editor removed it as "out of context". I recommend that Cdomm is allowed to prove his good intent. ----Jack | talk page 17:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
08 February 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Per this attack here targeting the same user Daft has had 95% of his rants and loopy outbursts at. Quacks like a duck evading a ban. Quackers! Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2013 (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]
  • I'm convinced this is him. Whether he is or not, I've indeffed the account per the self-professed dedication to harrassing another user. I note that a CheckUser is already aware of the situation and appears to have taken no action, so I'm not going to request CU attention here. Closing. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 20:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
25 September 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Per this vandalism edit on my userpage and previous engagement with User:BlackJack on his talk page, leads me to believe this is Daft making a quack. Also note the username CDTPP is smiliar in style to User:BDOPAF, a known sockpuppet of Daft. A coincidence I think not! Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2013 (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 Check declined by a checkuser. 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.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
27 December 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

I had previously submitted a sockpuppet report for this account back in September as a sockpuppet of User:Richard Daft, but decided to take no further action on my report as I decided to give this user a chance to redeem himself and become a positive contributor to the project. However, he has made abusive comments on both my usertalk and userpage once too many and it's about time his uncivil editing was dealt with. I edit this site and expect both my userpage to be left alone and to be able to use this site without being the subject of abuse from someone who is still the subject of a community ban, which can be seen here. The latest abuse from 26/12 can be seen here, with vandalism to my userpage carried out here and a personal attack back in August here which took a number of months to notice. Now considering this user is banned by the community, I think I've been rather generous in allowing this troll to stay about and prove himself as being mature and to show competence, however clearly civility is beyond this individual. The majority of his edits seem to be some creepy stalking of pages I have created (though not against the rules it is nonetheless weird). Going further back he user has made personal attacks here against User:Dweller (another of Daft's favourite people). I am also requesting CheckUser because if this is Richard Daft then that individual is subject to a Community Ban which they are flouting and the decision of that the community reached in banning this individual deserves to be respected and the principle of banning disruptive editors upheld. Furthermore, this account has now become disruptive and abusive and it needs to be established if this is indeed our long term offender. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was brought to my attention via an incident I raised here in response to the abuse that CDTPP account was warned about their conduct and the user who warned the account subsequently received a reply from a new account User:LTWAP, which is an obvious sockpuppet of CDTPP and I suspect by extension Richard Daft. The edit made to User:Erpert's talkpage can be seen here. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2013 (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]

All other accounts have gone  Stale, so a behavioral judgement is recommended. - Mailer Diablo 04:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

05 January 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

This IP address "happened" to stumble across WP:CRIC and three cricket articles [2], one day after User:CDTPP was blocked for operating abusive sockpuppets. I suspect this is the same user operating under a single-purpose.

Also unsure if I should open this SPI under the suspected sockmaster (Daft) or under CDTPP? The IP seems linked to a hotel in the north of England and the suspected sockmaster of CDTPP has been known to visit hotels in the past. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having had a look at the edits, the IP vandalised two of the three articles it edited. See this diff and this diff. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An IP within the same range based out of a hotel in Lytham St Annes, Lancashire, England today took to issuing personal threats here and vandalising the article associated with that talk page. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2014 (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]
15 January 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


This is a WP:IMPERSONATOR account that appears to target a user, User:AssociateAffiliate, with whom they have previously had a conflict. One of the user's first contributions was to undo an edit by User:FLTMW, a user recently banned as a sock of Richard Daft. Hack (talk) 08:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

  • In response to similarities, it is maybe a little tenuous, but AssociatedAffiliation generally does not provide edit summaries, and on the rare occasions they have, they said "not really encyclopaedic", and "speculative". Similarly, CDTPP, a sock of Daft rarely provided edit summaries, and when they did said "removed somewhat unencyclopaedic eulogy..", "removed a rather speculative statement..". Another sock, KestevenBullet also rarely made edit summaries (a trait of all of these socks) and among the summaries that were made: "a speculative statements which..". Harrias talk 22:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

AssociatedAffiliation later edits are also additional evidence.  Confirmed indistinguishable per technical evidence are the following accounts:

Amalthea 12:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

05 February 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

IP 86.138.166.244 "happened" to stumble across WP:CRIC and is similar to last three blocked IPs in archive starting 86.138.16x.xx. Familiar Daft abuse in this diff and this diff towards User:Nedrutland. Again in this diff and this diff. As usual, none of the messages signed. See also User talk:86.138.166.244 where abuse to User:331dot continued. Emphatic WP:DUCK.

IP 217.39.59.218 was not abusive but edits to The Park, Burley-on-the-Hill are logical progression from edits by 86.138.166.244. Different IP locations due to use of hotels, another Daft trait. Errors of spelling, grammar and poor use of wiki edit follow normal Daft pattern so WP:DUCK again emphatic.

TYPGTTO found when this diff on WT:CRIC led to talk pages of others in the discussion. Daft always goes to personal talk pages from CRIC. Found this diff and this diff and this diff. The "get out more" taunt is typical Daft and the bits about another user, obviously User:BlackJack, on the Johnlp page are more evidence of user operating under a single-purpose. Daft has been using names made up of initials like CDTPP. WP:DUCK again. HCCC14 (talk) 10:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Post closure comment: the remarks that were placed on my talk page struck me as wry and amusing rather than vandalism and on the basis of WP:AGF I responded to them in kind. If they'd been abusive I would have deleted them myself. We are never going to stop the rather tiresome to-ing and fro-ing of these continual referrals unless we start applying AGF a bit more. Of course, we should stamp down on vandalism, but we are also in this process reverting some genuine edits that correct facts and remove verbosity and repetition. Patently the "Richard Daft" character in his various guises needs to take a chill pill, but I suggest the "new user" who has referred this lot might do so as well. Johnlp (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
05 February 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Immediately following the last Daft SPI, he is using this IP to try and confuse the issue. See contribs record especially this diff on a user talk page. HCCC14 (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2014 (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]
09 February 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

See list of Spuistraat contribs; sock is active today and effectively admits to being Daft. Certainly passes WP:DUCK. HCCC14 (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2014 (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 February 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Latest obvious sockpuppet. First edits were to restore puppeteer's edits at [4], [5] and [6] Ruby Murray 16:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And this IP too which has already been blocked once this month. HCCC14 (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2014 (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]
21 February 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Per WP:DUCK, there isn't much doubt about these as it is the usual childish behaviour in response to my recent removal of all his banned inputs per WP:BMB. No doubt a flurry of the usual playground taunts will follow in typical moronic style. HCCC14 (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2014 (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]
23 February 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


One more for the archive. Hamstereen already blocked by an admin for harrassment. Its one article edit already reverted per WP:BMB. You may notice that he's writing Double Dutch literally now! LOL! It's a pity he can't be trusted and that he always reacts to disagreement like a spoiled brat as he could potentially be a useful editor. Oh, well. 217.42.58.12 (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2014 (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]

information Administrator note Per WP:DUCK I think it's clear this is another sock, so I have tagged this latest account (it was already blocked, as noted above). Closing case for archive. -- Atama頭 00:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

19 March 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

WP:DUCK as loud as ever on the original User:BillERyan page and he is impersonating another user. Hankvon Hok is another of his Dutch personae (see the archive). And the IP based as usual in Kidderminster is trying to restore edits reverted per WP:BMB. Ip is also trying to restore an attack on User:Harrias by Fraudmaster22 so that must be Daft as well. HCCC14 (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

In addition to the haul discovered by NativeForeigner, there are these which have been created in the last couple of days and already blocked by three different admins: TheJohnLeachShow (talk · contribs), TheFarmhoise (talk · contribs), JohnLeachKingofplagiarists (talk · contribs). All posts and edits have been reverted per WP:BMB, etc.

:NB: I strongly recommend that the page User talk:Johnlp is given semi-protection to stop Daft using it. Johnlp has stated that his page is open to allcomers but, no matter how liberal he wishes to be, the site cannot allow him to grant Daft a "safe haven" and so avert WP:BAN, especially when his posts there are invariably in breach of WP:PA. HCCC14 (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
04 April 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Usual attacks on articles recently created or updated by User:AssociateAffiliate including the usual internet hate crime, harrassment and name calling. All comply with terms of WP:DUCK to prove Daft's campaign of harrassment and hatred of WP:CRIC members, AssociateAffiliate being one of his prime targets. Evidence is that the IP posted this and the two socks posted this, this and this. The last one is tantamount to hate crime. Recommend checkuser to look for latent accounts as per action taken last week (see SPI archive) which found several. 217.42.57.169 (talk) 13:51, 4 April 2014 (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)​ 11:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


10 April 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Editing J. Bentley (Sheffield cricketer) and User talk:BillDRyan, one a constant article target of Daft and the other one of dozens of users he has a problem with. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2014 (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 April 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

These edits to J. Bentley (Sheffield cricketer) Xtrastress Bowsier are proof enough and there are two more which attacked User talk:HCCC14 but were missed off earlier reports. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xtrastress

Per WP:DUCK. Edits made here to an article which is a frequent target of Daft (blanking content in it) and commenting on sympathetic userpage. Requesting CheckUser too (see last two SPI investigations) as there's rarely ever one sockpuppet in the woodwork. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jonnyleacho, Theliar23 & 31.221.53.158

Another attack on J. Bentley (Sheffield cricketer) per the one reported above (see 17 April) and now on Bill Bowes. Fits the established pattern and WP:DUCK certainly applies to both. Let me know if you need more information as I haven't done this for a long time. I would echo request above by AssociateAffiliate for CheckUser as tere could be a spate of these. The IP listed here is a static IP belonging to a firm called Exponential-e Ltd based in London. BlackJack (talk) 11:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And a further attack on Bill Bowes this time using Theliar23. Jack | talk page 11:18, 20 April 2014 (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 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

It's been a few months, perhaps Daft has had other things to occupy his time with. However, he's back! This time as an IP. See diff here and contributions here. Apparently myself and User:Killuminator should "die soon". So we'll call that ban evasion and death threats! For the record the IP is based in Carmarthenshire in Wales, a location long known to be one of the hang-outs of this troll. I'm also requesting CheckUser as it's always the case with Daft, he has several socks on the go at once. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2014 (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 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

I had previously reported this IP in a previous SPI, but it seems no action was taken against it. Once again this is Daft quacking louder than ever before. See contributions for evidence. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2014 (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 June 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

This IP has already been blocked, but Daft makes the boast here that he has multiple accounts on stand-by. Maybe worth doing a CU to see if any ducks come out of the woodwork? Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2014 (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 July 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Here we go again. See the contribs and, in particular, look at this ANI case (it's the section right at the bottom of the page, btw). The usual tedious, pathetic, infantile garbage but what can you do? Quack, quack. Jack | talk page 13:29, 18 July 2014 (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 July 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

See this diff and the two preceding ones which constitute the usual playground taunts. Notice that "this time" it will be "the last time" and that he "really means it". Don't hold your breath. The IP attacked this SPI page and has already been blocked but please add it to the archive for the record. Given all the stuff about a battalion of trolls at the ready, I recommend you run CheckUser on these two and also on 86.141.98.152 which was the case reported yesterday. By the way, if he has attacked fifty articles, they are not on my watchlist so I suppose he may have attacked the work of someone else he doesn't like. Thanks again. Jack | talk page 08:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC) Jack | talk page 08:47, 19 July 2014 (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]


20 July 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


And another one, clearly associated with the IP that was blocked yesterday if you look its contribs. This highlights the need for a CU as requested previously as the troll is active at present despite his "goodbye forever and I mean it" lies. Over to you. Jack | talk page 05:04, 20 July 2014 (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]


20 July 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Continuation of trolling over the last two or three days (see recent entries). These have already been blocked but cases should be stored in archive for the record. Still recommend CU re all recent activity as it remains likely that sleeper accounts have been created. Jack | talk page 10:27, 20 July 2014 (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]


24 July 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Another one for the record. WP:DUCK confirms. Continuation of recent activity. Suggest CU on this IP and on the recent userids and IPs. Jack | talk page 16:22, 24 July 2014 (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]
07 August 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

See the contribs. Same old story and openly admits it. Recommend checkuser in case he has created sleepers again. Jack | talk page 18:19, 7 August 2014 (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]

All blocked, clear DUCKs. Will leave it up to a clerk/CU to judge whether a CU would be worthwhile. Jenks24 (talk) 06:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

16 August 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

IPs are a direct continuation of recently blocked User:EaKapake (see last week's additions to the Daft archive) and User:Shelby Montanas, identified last week by CU, also meets WP:DUCK as Daft has often been found in music articles of the kind involved there. Even if the Shelby Montanas edits are "good", they are a breach of WP:BAN and WP:BMB and must be removed. Note that this week the IP edits have focused on attacking User:Harrias and User:Johnlp whilst implicating a third party organisation in his harrasment of WP:CRIC. Immediately following these attacks, and an entire career of such attacks, he has the hypocrisy to complain to WP:ANI about personal attacks against himself. This is of course typical as we have seen it many times previously. Jack | talk page 05:28, 16 August 2014 (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]
27 September 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

See contributions an obvious duck. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 09:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

and same for the rest. An obvious duck. Deploy checkuser to find "sleepers", please.
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
12 January 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

See contributions. Same as before, obvious duck. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 00:23, 12 January 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]
26 January 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Entries follow same pattern as before and attempt to attack the usual targets. Passes WP:DUCK. Recommend use of checkuser to find any sleepers. Jack | talk page 12:32, 26 January 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]
  • I've hardblocked 217.39.74.176 for a month, as the IP is showing the same signs will all of the insults. I'm leaving 217.43.221.251 alone, as it hasn't made an edit in nearly 2 months. A checkuser can't be performed here, as we don't have any accounts to compare and checkusers won't link an IP to an account. Mike V • Talk 23:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
28 February 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

More of the same. Both have been inactive for a couple of weeks but should be blocked and archived anyway. There might be more than one sock so please deploy CU. Jack | talk page 17:22, 28 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]
13 May 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

IP geolocates to the usual place and edits comply with WP:DUCK. Usual target area in all cases. The usual lies and infantile taunts evident too. Jack | talk page 19:55, 13 May 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]
25 May 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Clear pattern via IP 217.43.220.81 (confirmed here 15 May) with this edit restored by 86.138.97.87 and on through 1726 talk, 1733, 1733 talk, WT:Cricket and 1734 talk. Suggest CU search for "sleeper" accounts; wide target area. GnGn (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

I would add that all comply with WP:DUCK. Note the 86 IP has already been long-term blocked for harrassment. Recommend CU search for "sleeper" accounts as these have been found before. This comment was wrongly placed previously. Thanks. Jack | talk page 04:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

25 May 2016

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Same targets within WP:CRIC project. Similar styles of writing and abusive content, so passes WP:DUCK test. Recommend all edits are deleted per terms of WP:BAN which applies here: can the admin please do this on all talk pages edited? Suggest similar total block on IP to that used for 86.162.199.252 (Daft again) in March. Jack | talk page 07:55, 25 May 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]

30 May 2016

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Same as the one last week. Passes WP:DUCK test as usual. Suggest a long-term block as this IP is close to Daft's known habitat. Jack | talk page 13:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And five more for the record, mostly harrassing User:PeeJay2K3. 86.170.167.142 (talk) 19:02, 27 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]

27 November 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

WP:DUCK applies here: compare with archived edits especially on WT:CRIC, also on cricket articles and WP:CRIC member talk pages. Although quiet and reasonably well-behaved for the last couple of years, recent edits suggest a renewal of disruptive activity in the cricket project. Strongly recommend that a checkuser scan is done because, as in the past, there are probably sleepers and other disruptive accounts being used elsewhere on the site. Jack | talk page 11:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For diffs, compare this one from the archive with this recent one. Same tone, same subject, same target. A quick scan through the archive will find loads of this stuff. See also the talk page warning which was for typical Daft-like misuse (abuse of BLP) on an unconnected talk page. Jack | talk page 20:10, 29 November 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]
I think that is a mistake and your reasoning is poor. Obviously the "master and previous socks are stale" because they've all been blocked and he is subject to sitewide WP:BAN. Past experience has shown (see the archive) that once this person becomes active, he creates large numbers of userids. Please reconsider. Jack | talk page 10:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

24 May 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

repeated talk page stalking, claiming I am BlackJack Spike 'em (talk) 07:49, 24 May 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]


31 May 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Edit warring and talk page stalking, claiming I am BlackJack Spike 'em (talk) 15:11, 31 May 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]

22 July 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Usual vandalism of talk pages, reversion of edits, accusing people of being BlackJack. Spike 'em (talk) 10:12, 22 July 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]

07 October 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Daft by name, Daft by nature. See vandalism to Talk:Francis Disney-Roebuck. Quack, quack, it's a duck. StickyWicket (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also this edit made to Christopher Oldfield's article. Daft references in a subtle way "...leach", who he refers to User:BlackJack as. StickyWicket (talk) 22:22, 12 October 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]

11 February 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

IP editors reverting edits claiming they are by his nemesis BlackJack or leave messages on WP:CRIC members talk pages accusing them of being Jack / John / Leach. He seems to have moved to New Zealand, so adding these to establish a pattern. Sorry if some of these are too old to do anything with. Spike 'em (talk) 14:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

From what I can tell, he is a cantankerous cricket statistician who had a falling out with another (BlackJack) and they have both resorted to sockpuppetry to both disrupt the project and annoy each other. He now accuses anyone active on the project (including me) of being one of Jack's puppets. Spike 'em (talk) 09:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MattLongCT: it's pretty much what Spike 'em said, it all began in about 2009/10 when he fell out with BlackJack over a professional matter off-site. He became disruptive to the project in a major way, so he was blocked and a few years later given a community ban. Since then he reappears as an IP, normally editing from hotels, vandalising pages and accusing anyone who challenges him of being BlackJack. StickyWicket (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Spike 'em & StickyWicket, welp... That's fun. I will certainly be on the lookout for this type of activity then. Thank you both for answering my question! :D ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 19:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

15 March 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

See comments here, claiming I am a sockpuppet of who I assume to be User:BlackJack. It's Daft, quacking like a duck! Requesting CheckUser as he's bound to have a loads more socks lined up per his usual MO. StickyWicket (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Comment Taking the explanation below at face value and looking at user's other editing history, I'd be surprised if this is Daft. In this instance they did not directly call anyone Jack or Leach and most of their posting has been in articles relating to India. In defence of the nominator, there have been frequent recent posts by Daft on various talk pages accusing anyone (including myself) involved in WP:CRIC of being a sock of BlackJack so it is reasonable to come to the conclusion that any accusation of socking is from Daft. When I saw the initial post I assumed it must have been Daft too, it was not until I looked into it further this morning that I changed my mind. Spike 'em (talk) 10:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

@AssociateAffiliate: What other behavioral similarities are there between Flapjacktastic and Richard Daft? @Flapjacktastic: I'd like you to address two issues. First, please explain your comment at the AfD, and, second, please address the allegations that you are a sock of Richard Daft.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. @Bbb23: please see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Richard Daft, where there are several accounts with "Jack" in their name, all of which stem from Daft's near 10 year obsessive dispute with User:BlackJack, for which he is subject to a community ban. Daft also claims that all members of WP:CRIC are socks of BlackJack, so I'm not alone in being accused by this guy. I'm amazed he's resisted making any attacks on CRIC members with this account until today, seeing as he registered it in January. Besides which, how would a user who has not edited any cricket articles since registering, or posted to the CRIC talkpage, know anything about BlackJack being banned and thus be in a position to accuse CRIC members of being said user? StickyWicket (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No, I'm not Blackjack or Richard Daft. I was commenting on blocked sock User:SZ1999, after looking at their contributions to AFDs, because puppeteer User:Abhishek4889 has left a long trail of shitty AFD nominations. Sorry, this is the second time today I made that mistake on an AFD where SZ1999 was involved:
My username comes from my famous chocolate-cinnamon flapjack. I was looking at SZ1999's AFDs because while randomly categorising uncategorised articles, as I like to do, I saw that Sungkai (state constituency) incredibly had an AFD on it for notability. I followed the trail, and found SZ1999 was blocked, tried to tag their sockpuppet damage, and now here we are. Sorry it looked like I was accusing you: that was my own unfortunate error out of haste, and I hope the diffs above now make the errors clearer. Flapjacktastic (talk) 00:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Flapjacktastic's explanation seems reasonable, and I can see how the username similarity might throw someone off but it appears to be just an unfortunate coincidence. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17 November 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

See here, same pattern as usual, Daft being a sad individual quacks like the sad duck he is. There's probably a load more actual registered accounts he has set up too, so requesting CU. StickyWicket (talk) 22:40, 17 November 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]

19 November 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

See contributions from 19th November. StickyWicket (talk) 22:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

@Bbb23: like this? StickyWicket (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

@AssociateAffiliate: You must present comparison diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs plural, and use the diff of the IP, not you reverting the IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08 February 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Unusual one this, in my 13 years on here I've not really come across one like this! So this user reverts an edit I made to William Kamanyi here. At first I think nothing of it and assume it is an IP who happened to stumble across this edit and was unaware of how the cricket project categorises cricketers. Then later this IP reverts loads of other edits I have made, clearly demonstrating awareness of how to search for a users edits (I'm not sure a newbie would know where to look). In this revert they use the shorthand "rv" in their edit summary, which strikes me as odd - why would a newbie use shorthand terms from the off? Then there is this edit summary which clearly shows the user is familiar with some of the cricket topics I write about, leading me to think they may have a physical account on here and are aware of me from that. I have recently made comments at the VP about 19th century cricketers, so wonder if the IP is a sockpuppet from a user there? Might be worth also considering, though maybe a bit of a stretch, User:Richard Daft who was a prolific disruptive user toward cricket project members and used to leave edit summaries similar in style to the "19th century nobodies" one linked above; he moved to Australia a few years back and this IP tracks to Perth. In light of my suspicions about a participant at the VP being a sockmaster, or Daft being back about, I'm requesting CheckUser. StickyWicket (talk) 16:26, 8 February 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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Richard_Daft/Archive&oldid=1140406864"