From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


MFIreland

MFIreland ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
21 April 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Tendentious editing at military hardware and particularly Irish military-related articles. All articles, quite disparate apart from the general military theme (except for Susan Lynch a minor Irish actor) were edited by both accounts.

User is blocked for a year, but advised that this would probably be reduced if an appeal was made. Editor has previously edited using a sock and was blocked for same in Nov. 2010. RashersTierney ( talk) 20:48, 21 April 2011 (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 endorsed - Endorsing to see if MFIreland is evading their block. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • information Administrator note I've blocked and tagged the sock, and left a note on the master's talk page pointing this out. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC) reply
    • I found MFIreland's behavior tendentious although his edits were on the balance constructive. It's a pity he chose to create a sock rather than accept my invitation to appeal his block.. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 18:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC) reply


14 May 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Similar edits to those posted by MFIreland before block.

Suggest editing pattern satisfies the 'Duck' requirement. RashersTierney ( talk) 15:15, 14 May 2011 (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
  • Adding a CU to confirm. If it's true, we may want to extend the block on the master. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  •  Likely Same ISP and UA's. Courcelles 16:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • information Administrator note I've blocked and tagged the sock. I've also indef blocked MFIreland - despite the warning I gave them last month, they don't seem to want to stop this behavior. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC) reply
31 January 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Compare contribution pages, concentration on military & arms, total absence of edit summaries, no discussion on talk pages whatsoever, and unlike previous sock with concentration on Ireland matters, there's now a concentration on Rhodesian matters. Editing patterns (section/page blanking) are also similar, but there's enough in the contribution pages to prove the case. Would an IP/range block be appropriate? TransporterMan ( TALK) 16:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

  • MFIreland also edited extensively on Rhodesian military-related articles. For those not proficient in the Irish language, it should be noted that 'Gunnaí' translates as 'Guns', indicating a clear Irish link, though they have been keeping away from Ireland-related topics. Same MO though, refuses to engage with other editors, reverts without edit summary, blanks all attempts to engage at their TP etc. RashersTierney ( talk) 16:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
14 April 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Same tendentious style in same topic areas. Refuses to engage in any discussion, as per form of sock master. At least two other editors also suspect this is the same indef. blocked editor - see here and here. RashersTierney ( talk) 22:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC) reply

I have no doubt that these IPs are another manifestation of User:MFIreland. Exactly the same topics (Irish military matters), the same types of edit (changing WP:COMMONNAME terms to military jargon, typically substituting numerals for ordinals as in 1st Brigade > 1 Brigade), the same attempts to delete sourced material and introduce dubious material or OR, and the same behaviour in peremptorily reverting without explanation, and ignoring repeated efforts to engage via talk page. This blocked user is vandalising again and again, and tying up the time of constructive editors. Brocach ( talk) 01:30, 15 April 2013 (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 declined - CU will not connect IPs to accounts except in cases of extreme abuse. Please read the instructions. Rs chen 7754 00:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Sorry for the long delay, Brocach!
    I'm going to close this, purely because the IPs you mentioned haven't been active the last 11 days. If this is still ongoing, please reopen and I'll see what I can do.
    Cheers, Amalthea 20:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC) reply
OK, user has gone quiet of late and the target articles have stabilised, so they might have reconsidered their approach. Thanks for your time. Brocach ( talk) 21:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC) reply
27 December 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Following on from a previous confirmed SPI case, the user MFIreland has returned to the same disruptive and SOCK behaviour. (Note: User never really went away for very long, but editted under a few different IPs before returning to pattern of creating multiple named accounts).

In any event, the above accounts are all apparently operated by the same user. As evidenced by:

  • The distinctive way in which the first edit for each user was to create the user page (having been outed or otherwise challenged under the previous account name). This is not normal behaviour for genuinely new accounts: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
  • Similar distinctive way in which ordinals are removed from the labels of units of the Irish Defence Forces (1st, 2nd, 3rd -> 1, 2, 3). Innocuous in itself - but disruptive in how undertaken: [6] [7] [8]
  • Repeated edits to present the 1916 Easter Rising in Ireland as "part of" rather than "contemporary to" WW1. Including repeated attempts to represent Irish nationalists as aligned with German Empire in WW1: [9] [10] [11] [12]
  • Insistence on removing the description "Irish" from any Irish-man who fought in a British-uniform (a behaviour carried-over from previous SOCKs): [13] [14] [15]
  • Generally swimming in same pool of articles. See history of Irish Volunteers and Defence Forces in particular.

Abuse of the accounts ranges from edit-warring, 3RR evasion, apparent inclusion of COPYVIO material, refusal to engage or follow CON - and generally being disruptive to a range of interrelated articles. Myself and other editors have been reasonable and patient with this type of behaviour, ( [16] [17] [18] [19]) but this has been ongoing for some years now, and - well - enough is enough. Guliolopez ( talk) 17:56, 27 December 2013 (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
30 May 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Army_Ranger_Wing&action=history and /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MFIreland/Archive IrishSpook ( talk) 19:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

  •  Comment by Guliolopez - Have to agree with nominator. I created a related draft SPI a while ago - but sat on it as blocks were inevitably applied for disruption issues, and so an SPI seemed redundant. (And frankly I was kinda hoping that, after years of this, things might change). Anyway, the 86.x and 109.x IPs are undoubtedly the same user (109.x popped-up with the same behaviour on the same articles as soon as the 86.x address was blocked for disruption). I similarly have no doubt that, for the reasons outlined in the draft, this is a longstanding case. Frustrating. But indubitable (even to Watson). Guliolopez ( talk) 23:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

04 January 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

Typical edits of this sock. BilCat ( talk) 00:47, 4 January 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

 Additional information needed: I have asked the reporter to supply diffs illustrating the evidence here ( [20]). If no further details are forthcoming after several days, this SPI should be closed without any action taken. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC) reply

  • No evidence provided and no edits by the IP for a week. Closing. Bbb23 ( talk) 15:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply

22 February 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

Behaviour, repeated pushing of the same dubious edits Andy Dingley ( talk) 16:33, 22 February 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

  •  Additional information needed - @ Andy Dingley: 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. ~ Rob13 Talk 18:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • No response from the filer and the IP's edits are already old. Closing. Bbb23 ( talk) 00:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC) reply

07 May 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

After 86.165.119.144 was blocked for edit warring, user Sadiedens made this edit to British Army. Upon further investigation, I found that the user had been accused of sockpuppeting before as 86.170.84.88 who has a similar genre of edits. I dug deeper and found that user MFIreland, previously permabanned for sockpuppetry also used to edit British Army. As well as other similar pages. Finally, it seems that @ Guliolopez: made the connection as well between MFIreland and 86.170.84.88 in the edit summary. The checkuser request is to see if there are additional puppets that might be already created since this is a long-time offender. Jcmcc ( Talk) 12:59, 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

This case is  Stale. CU declined.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC) reply

16 December 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

Join Sags is LTA perma-banned sockaholic MFIreland. Any number of those editors familiar with this user's previous form will recognise the QUACKing from some distance away. The pattern of warring on the AgustaWestland AW139 article being a particularly obvious trait. Given that it is expected however, and QUACKs not themselves being "enough", for myself I would note simply the:

  • Otherwise incredibly improbable (and near perfect) overlap between both users' articles of interest (mirrored with previous suspected and confirmed multiple socks).
  • Common patterns of blanking warnings. Repeated many many years apart from MFIreland [21] [22] [23], to this latest Join Sags incarnation [24] [25] [26]
  • Exact (and frankly, even after all of these years, baffling) replication of the same odd "spacing" edits. Compare examples from previous confirmed socks [27] [28] [29] to recent Join Sags ones [30] [31]. (I've always found this pattern a particularly odd and obvious trait of this master's socks. Even his DOZENS of IP socks have demonstrated this pattern. Making them easier to identify).

There are a number of editors (who have "interacted" with this disruptive LTA over many years) who I would invite to comment here. But am conscious of CANVAS. And chances are they'll find their way here anyway... Guliolopez ( talk) 01:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Update. And now we have Nine Steeny popping up. Just as this thread was opened and as Join Sags was warned by another editor for edit-warring, we find 'Nine Steeny' making the self-same edits on the same articles. Compare for example this edit by Join Sags with this edit by Nine Steeny. Same content, same spelling, same formatting, same edit. Same editor. Quack quack. Guliolopez ( talk) 23:45, 19 December 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

  • Join Sags and Nine Steeny are  Confirmed to each other and  Blocked without tags. MFIreland and the archives are  Stale, but the behavior checks out, so I'll leave it up to a clerk how to tag. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Due to being confirmed to one another, as well as the timeline, blanking, and spacing evidence that show a unique behavior that all accounts exhibit, I've chosen to go ahead and tag the two accounts. This SPI can be closed... ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 10:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MFIreland/Archive&oldid=1084293543"