From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Guido den Broeder

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

16 July 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

User admits to being the same person as The Jolly Bard on TJB's talk page, but claims that he's not actually the banned user, Roadcreature/ NL:Wegwezen, and that The Jolly Bard is an anagram of Jarold Blythe. The behavioural evidence that The Jolly Bard and Roadcreature are the same is strongly indicative, however, and administrators at nl-wiki came to the same determination a year ago. The original ban was made under the name User:Guido den Broeder on both wikis, then the user chose new aliases on each wiki during a test unbanning. The user was rebanned a couple of months later after the test unban failed. The Jolly Bard (now blocked by an ArbCom clerk) appears to have been an attempt to circumvent the ban, and Jarold Blythe is an overt attempt to circumvent that block in turn.

(Note that this evidence focuses on EN:The Jolly Bard and NL:The Jolly Bard, since Jarold Blythe is a new account and the user has openly admitted that they're the same person. I'm submitting a full SPI only to provide evidence against TJB/Jarold Blythe's claim that he's not Roadcreature/Wegwezen.)
In addition to similar styles of claiming innocence/disputing reality ( Roadcreature 1, 2, The Jolly Bard (see "Nederlands")) and false accusations of bias/involvement ( Roadcreature, EN:The Jolly Bard, NL:The Jolly Bard), both users claim to have the same illness (myalgic encephalomyelitis/ chronic fatigue syndrome), both users edit only on the English and Dutch wikis, both push for the idea that ME and CFS are not the same thing ( Roadcreature, The Jolly Bard) and both have edited on those and related pages (e.g., Fibromyalgia/ nl:Fibromyalgie) on both the English and Dutch wikis. In addition to that, The Jolly Bard on the Dutch wiki appears to share similar interests as Roadcreature/Wegwezen on themes such as chess and income.

Lankiveil has apparently discussed evidence with the Dutch Wikipedia admins, so may have more to add to this. – Robin Hood  (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

For background, this user had their username changed from what they claimed was their real name, to User:Roadcreature here and nl:Gebruiker:Wegwezen over at nlwiki. On both projects they were blocked, here initially as a community ban that was later updated to an ArbCom ban, according to the block log. A checkuser over at nlwiki last year discovered that "The Jolly Bard" and "Wegwezen" were the same person (see here). I checked with a user on the Dutch Wikipedia as my Dutch isn't that great, who confirmed my understanding on the discussion on that talk page. Even without the checkuser, as pointed out above, the behavioural evidence is pretty strong that the account belongs to the banned user.

As to why I didn't tag, that was simply an oversight on my part, which I will now rectify. I also point out that while I'm a clerk and a functionary, this block is a plain old garden variety admin block and can be overturned as such if any other admin feels it necessary. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 09:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC). reply

Comments by accused party

As accusing party and both administrators all failed to notify me, even though I have the right to defend myself, I only found this page today.

  • Regardless of what you think about me, please oversight all instances of the other living person's real name.
  • Human beings generally do not have two different real names.
  • There is no CU result at nl:Wikipedia. The other user's edits are from many years ago.
  • The behavioural evidence is not 'strong' but absent. Accusing party gives false evidence.
  • At no time did I claim to suffer from an illness.
  • The other user also used to edit in German and various other languages (and besides, a lot of users with Dutch as their native language also edit in English).
  • I did not edit Fibromyalgia [1]. On nl:Wikipedia, I edited a great many articles so already statistically it's quite normal to have two or three in common with another user who edited even more topics.

This leaves just one thing of note: I agree with the other user that ME and CFS are different entities (dubbed disputing reality by the accusing party). However, this happens to be the mainstream view over here as well as the international consensus among experts. But guess what: accusing party pushes their COI-induced view that the two are the same. They want the opposition to their POV removed. And that's all there is to see. Betholly Jard ( talk) 10:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  • I haven't violated any policy. I wouldn't have needed a new account if you hadn't been in such a hurry to block the previous one, before allowing me to defend myself. Betholly Jard ( talk) 12:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC) reply
I followed the process as laid out on the SPI page. Since the process appears to be partly automated and the instructions didn't mention anything about notification, I assumed that whatever notifications were required would be handled by either the automation or at a later stage, as necessary. In regards to some of your points
  • The move history of from Guido's real name to Roadcreature/Wegwezen is a matter of record on each wiki, so I see no conflict in mentioning that name. In addition, I am readily able to find signatures on the wiki on all kinds of pages that mention Guido's full name prior to the renaming. Oversighting would be for Guido to request, if indeed he isn't you, but given the volume of edits under the original name, I suspect it's much too late.
  • The Jolly Bard didn't edit at Fibromyalgia, but Roadcreature did, Wegwezen did on the Dutch wiki, and The Jolly Bard did on the Dutch wiki.
  • Finally, at no point did you agree with me that ME and CFS are different entities, I only pointed out that you held that belief, as did Roadcreature. – Robin Hood  (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC) reply


Reply to Lankiveil

  • My block on nl:Wikipedia and the link to the other user did not go unchallenged. They simply blocked every user that spoke up, oversighted a lot of their contributions, and issued a general warning to the community that everybody who got involved would be treated in the same manner.
  • Again, the other user has edited in various additional languages, but if that weren't the case, it would still eliminate only a tiny fraction of all Dutch-speaking users, so please can we drop this.
  • I did not edit disruptively on Liberland nor any other article for that matter. From your own link, you can see that the user who reported me did not receive any support. The user had a different view and didn't like it that my contributions prevailed.
  • My edits re Paraduin are no coincidence, but neither are they evidence of anything. I simply joined an encyclopedia project that they are hosting.
  • The nl:Wikipedia 'co-worker' that you contacted is not known to me as 'a nice fellow', but as someone who often bothers users working on the project that I joined.
  • I did not ask 'on a number of occasions' to oversight the other user's real name, but several times on the same occasion. This is not peculiar. I don't want my account linked to another person's real name. What is peculiar, is that I have to ask, and that my request is ignored. Betholly Jard ( talk) 14:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The other user was not indeffed on nl:Wikipedia for their behaviour, but because of legal action. Betholly Jard ( talk) 17:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk - to compare The Jolly Bard and Jarold Blythe. Roadcreature is  Stale, so we can't check him. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The Jolly Bard ( talk · contribs · count) and Jarold Blythe ( talk · contribs · count) are  Technically indistinguishable.
  • I've blocked Jarold Blythe in the same fashion as Lankiveil blocked The Jolly Bard (no talk page access or e-mail)). However, I haven't tagged either account. I'd like to hear from Lankiveil why they didn't tag The Jolly Bard. To that end, I've put this case on hold.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 16:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Tagged Jarold Blythe as confirmed. Closing. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC) reply
 Clerk note: In reviewing this user's UTRS appeal #14009, here are my conclusions:
  • Obviously, The Jolly Bard, Jarold Blythe and Betholly Jard are all the same guy (both per CU and self-admitted).
  • But looking past that specific instance of block evasion, what matters here is the block of The Jolly Bard as a "return" on ArbCom-banned user Roadcreature.
  • Yunshui has confirmed (in the UTRS ticket) that there is no local CU data to link the two.
  • Lankiveil says that nlwiki user Wegwezen is the same person as enwiki user Roadcreature but I cannot find evidence of that.
  • Lankiveil also says that nlwiki user Wegwezen was CU-confirmed on nlwiki to The Jolly Bard, of which I cannot find any evidence (but perhaps GoogleTranslate can be blamed).
  • The behavioural evidence is non-neglible but does not convince me beyond reasonable doubt that Roadcreature = today's guy, and as such I question the legitimacy of the first block of The Jolly Bard (which lead to the other two accounts as block evasion, which can be dealt with accordingly). ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 13:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Thank you. As far as I can see, nlwiki user Wegwezen hasn't edited since September 2010, so I don't understand how a positive CU match could've been made in 2014 linking nlwiki users Wegwezen and The Jolly Bard. Lankiveil, can you shed some light? ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 17:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC) reply
I'll preface by saying that my Dutch is "inelegant", but with the help of a Dutch co-worker, a nice fellow from the Dutch Wikipedia IRC channel, and a well thumbed copy of an English-Dutch dictionary, I'm pretty confident that I'm capturing the nuance of what's going on an nlwiki accurately.
  • According to the discussions on nlwiki, they have used behavioural evidence as well as checkuser information to link Wegwezen to TJB. See for instance this diff where an nlwiki administrator notes that "dus ook een CU uitgewezen dat GdB en TJB wel degelijk dezelfde zijn, en is de blokkering dus onomstotelijk terecht", or loosely translated "including a CU shown that GdB and TJB same indeed, and the blocking so indisputably right". Or here, where User:Apookal notes that "Na een uitgebreid onderzoek waarbij ook edits op andere wikipedia's zijn betrokken is vast komen te staan dat dit account inderdaad een reincarnatie is van User:Wegwezen" or "After a comprehensive investigation which also edits other Wikipedia's involved is firmly established that this account is indeed a reincarnation of (Wegwezen)", and then adds "Het gaat om daadwerkelijk CU onderzoek" or "It is actually CU research". Apookal is a checkuser over at nlwiki. I'll drop a note to Akoopal in a minute to see if he can add anything. The blocking of TJB and the link to his former account appears uncontroversial on nlwiki.
  • As User:RobinHood70 notes, the two accounts have shown an overlapping interest in the same articles, have the same two languages, and exhibited similar patterns of disruptive behaviour.
  • Although not a hanging offence on its own, I find it peculiar that TJB has on a number of occasions demanded the oversight of their former username, exhibiting the same desire to expunge that real name from Wikipedia as Roadcreature did. I find this to be quite peculiar behaviour if the two are unrelated.
  • Since blocking TJB, I have been made aware of this discussion where TJB was making disruptive edits to an article, concerning a micronation that they are heavily involved with. I have information linking "Paraduin" to the former account name, although I'm not comfortable plastering it all over a public wiki page, happy to provide this privately if necessary.
On their own, each piece above is suspicious rather than proof positive, but taken together either they're all the same person, or this is an astronomical coincidence. I should note that Roadcreature's pattern of behaviour in the past was to suck down enormous accounts of administrator time with wikilawyering, petty disruption, and increasingly fanciful claims. I suggest not wasting any further time on this individual. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 12:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC). reply
Am I missing something? What is "GdB", and why would a confirmation of "GdB to TJB" mean anything in regards to Wegwezen vs. The Jolly Bard? ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 13:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Salvidrim!: "GdB" is User:Guido den Broeder, previous username of Roadcreature. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply
I indeed was involved in this check a year ago, remember it well as it was during Wikimania. In short, with crosswiki details, we could proof that TJB was indeed GdB. I will of course not go into details here, but there is a file in the dutch section on the checkuser-wiki under Guido den Broeder. Akoopal ( talk) 22:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply
And forgot to mention, available on irc normally for any questions if needed. Akoopal ( talk) 22:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • In summary:
  1. An nlwiki CU has  Confirmed accounts The Jolly Bard and Wegwezen. (Evidence apparently available on CUwiki and no reason to doubt results)
  2. Original account Guido den Broeder was renamed to Wegwezen on nlwiki and Roadcreature on enwiki (back in the time of local renames, before global accounts), which means they are confirmed as being the same original owner without the need for Checkuser data
  3. An enwiki CU has  Confirmed The Jolly Bard and Jarold Blythe. The user himself has admitted that these two accounts + Betholly Jard were all his.
  4. Behavioural evidence (both here and off-wiki evidence submitted privately) supports the conclusion that all the aforementioned accounts can be connected with near-certainty to the same ArbCom banned user.

Hence, I have  Blocked and tagged the three accounts active in the past few days as socks of Roadcreature, an ArbCom-banned user. I have opted to disable talk-page and e-mail as is usual for ArbCom banned users who can only appeal via WP:BASC. ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 22:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  • @ Akoopal: But, still, how was it possible for Duch CheckUser to connect Wegwezen with The Jolly Bard, known that The Jolly Bard tarted editing almost three years after Wegwezen stopped. Wouldn't Wegwezen's data be stale by that time? Vanjagenije (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply
    Akoopal's comment leads me to believe some of the original CU data was preserved on CUwiki, and that the more recent check was made against that data. ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 23:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply
    @Vanjagenije that will not be disclosed onwiki. The data is on checkuserwiki, and can be explained to an english checkuser or the ArbCom if needed. Akoopal ( talk) 07:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC) reply

06 November 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

Newest incarnation, Jyl Boldheart, is an anagram of The Jolly Bard, as the others have been. The user edits at the same articles or similar ones to the other socks. There is also overwhelming evidence, both online and off, that the user is Roadcreature/ Guido den Broeder, who is ArbCom banned. See the SPI archive for most of that evidence, while the two recent ANI requests ( 1, 2), and all the various user talk pages above add detail. (Note: I previously simply filed these at ANI, but per Mike V's advice, I'm now filing at SPI.) – Robin Hood  (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2015 (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

  • CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk - Anagramatic username, interested in Liberland, this is WP:DUCK. I'm endorsing the CU to look for sleepers. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The three accounts are  Confirmed. Block and tags.  No sleepers immediately visible. Closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 20:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC) reply

11 September 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

TonyBallioni ( talk) 11:10, 11 September 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

24 December 2019

Suspected sockpuppets


Using signature that says "Almond Plate" when that username is an editor blocked for sockpuppetry. I pointed this out, and they replied with this [2]. Clovermoss ( talk) 00:41, 24 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

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Guido_den_Broeder/Archive&oldid=1076206141"