Moylesy98 ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)

18 March 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

• Davemos ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I really regret that it's come to this, but the quacking is deafening. Andy Dingley ( talk) 00:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC) reply

I was in the process of starting this SPI but Andy Dingley beat me to it. Anyway, Davemos has made three edits so far, all three have restored pages to a version as left by Moylesy98 ( edit one, edit two, edit three). The edit summary of edit one states "having me blocked doesn’t make your harassment or your removal of my images justified", which is as strong a suggestion of block evasion as I've seen in ages; edits one and two reverted edits made by Mjroots ( talk · contribs), the blocking admin (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Moylesy98 reported by User:David Biddulph (Result:Blocked 2 Weeks )), and edit three undid an edit by Tony May ( talk · contribs), with whom Moylesy98 is having some kind of feud, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Dispute resolution needed. This is such a clear case that I have already indef-blocked Davemos and am filing the SPI partly so that the case is on record and partly so that my actions may be reviewed. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 00:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

As the admin that blocked Moylesey98 for edit warring (again), I have absolutely no problem with the block being extended to indef. The community has been far too patient with this editor and it is time that either he complies with the rules, or leaves the project. Mjroots ( talk) 06:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Architect 134 - that appears to be an unregistered user! Mjroots ( talk) 10:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC) reply

What's the lowest line you can read on the chart? -- Bbb23 ( talk) 12:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC) reply

user:Davemos is not my sockpuppet. Tony May ( talk) 09:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Tony May: Nobody suggested that you were. Your name was only mentioned (by me) because one of your edits was reverted by Davemos; it is Davemos who is accused of being a sockpuppet here. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 22:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC) reply

• I would be happy to close this SPI as no-further-action and to pretend it just never happened. The sock is blocked. I hope Moylesy can see that whatever happens next, socking to push the same changes he'd been making will not lead anywhere good.

We certainly shouldn't take any action against Moylesy unless there has been a clear technical confirmation from CU. Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

@ Redrose64: I'm not sure what action you want here. Do you want a CU to confirm the relationship? If the relationship is confirmed, do you want the block of the master to be extended to indefinite? Something else?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Bbb23: I didn't ask for CU, Andy Dingley did. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 21:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Redrose64: I know, and if you had said just that you were filing it for the record, I wouldn't have said anything, but you also said "and partly so that my actions may be reviewed", which I didn't understand. SPI is not like AN or ANI where admins often ask for their blocks to be reviewed by other admins and the community. Hence my questions.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC) reply

So are you saying that any admin action that I take in connection with an ongoing SPI is infallible and not to be questioned, implying that the block that I imposed must be accepted as absolute and is therefore irrevocable? All I did was: gather some evidence; on the grounds of that evidence consider that a block was warranted; impose the block; present the evidence. Perhaps the last two were done the wrong way around. Does WP:SPI/AI#Taking administrative action on open cases mean that I can either present evidence or impose a block but not do both? All I'm asking is somebody to say "good block" or "too harsh" or "based on the evidence provided, your decision was flawed" or "you shouldn't have blocked because Andy Dingley had filed an SPI and so the right to block is thereby taken away from regular admins and lies solely with the SPI clerks" or "that was an abuse of privilege and I am asking the buros to take away your admin bit". -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 23:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Ah well, I give up.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC) reply

• The two users are  Unrelated. Davemos is  Confirmed to joe-jobber Architect 134 ( talk · contribs · count). Closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC) reply

20 April 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

• 2A00:23C5:FC81:3E00:FD2C:A2A7:284D:D101 ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser ( log))

• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Background: Moylesy98 is currently blocked. There have been tensions between Tony May and Moylesy98 in the run up to that block. The key concern here is that Sockmaster Moylesy98 may be using an IP to evade the block without realising the impact of doing that in making a successful future block appeal. Article has previously been edited by Sock puppet Davemos [1]. Also note image in question was I believe added by Tony May which may be why targeted: [2]. Recent relevant history:

• 17:17 April 16 [3] - On Moylesy98 talk: Unblock req. by D. Moyses on talk page
• 23:02 April 16 [4] On Kolhapur - Series of edits by 2A00:23C5:FC81:3E00:FD2C:A2A7:284D:D101 essentially attempts at relocating an image which to be fair could be regarded as rendering awkwardly. This was however similar to edits made earlier by a now blocked sock of Moylesy98. I don't think the image is related to Moylesy98 but I could be totally wrong. The article has certainly been the subject of warring.
• 02:10 April 17 [5] - On Kolhapur: Tony May puts the image back, adds a little content, and in the edit summary alleges 2A00:23C5:FC81:3E00:FD2C:A2A7:284D:D101 is a sock of Moylesy98. (The allegation seems credible).
• 02:27 April 17 [6] - On Moylesy98 talk: Response by Tony May to the unblock request. It is somewhat confrontational but the underlying concerns seem at a minimum non unjustified. However it does not mention anon IP edits of a few hours earlier ( it takes we very little of AGF the Tony had not unreasonable reasons for avoiding this, perhaps not 100% sure the IP sock accusation is true or perhaps not wishing to add that difficultly to Moylesy98 ).
• 08:37 April 17 WP:ANI - I gave a Weak support !vote and comment at ANI.
• 13:08 April 17 [7] - On Moylesy98 talk: Response to Tony May by Moylesy98 which I read as he indicating he felt hounded/attacked/bullied Djm-leighpark ( talk) 09:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

• I see no reason to believe that the IP is Moylesy. The named account here was already blocked a month ago as a sock of a simply distruptive joe-jobber. The evidence here is mostly diff'ing accounts other than the suspected IP, so I don't know how that's supposed to work?

I'd support a CU here, as that may give a technical link. However I don't expect that to be the case. As it is, I just see another dispute across a common article, and no reason to accuse Moylesy of being involved. Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply

As the person bringing the SPI I accept I may have the wrong end of the stick here and and it may be for example 2A00:23C5:FC81:3E00:FD2C:A2A7:284D:D101 is a sock of joe-jobber perhaps with an intention of looking like Moylesy. I think I'd now also support a CU in case it helps prove/disprove. thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 12:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply

(Added after closure)

See later SPI report. Further digging puts Moylesy into the same geographical location as the IP. Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

• This case is being reviewed by Cabayi as part of the clerk training process. Please allow Cabayi to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on Cabayi's Talk page or on this page if more appropriate. Cabayi ( talk) 14:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• The case now seems to be that the IP is naughty and might be somebody, but now probably NOT Moylesy98. CU will NOT confirm an IP to a named account. If the IP is to be dealt with it'll need to be through an alternative forum, WP:AIV perhaps? Cabayi ( talk) 14:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply

01 May 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

• 2A00:23C5:FC81:3E00:5516:42B7:C392:63F2 ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser ( log))
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

ISP locates to Southport / Sefton.

So does Facebook https://www.facebook.com/MrMoylesPhotography/ Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:22, 1 May 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

•  Check declined by a checkuser - Per the checkuser policy and the WMF privacy policy, checkusers will not publicly disclose the connection between an IP and an account. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 12:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• I've blocked the IP range at the /64 level, because it's either (a) Moylesy98 editing logged-out, or (b) more unlikely, someone false-flagging them; either way we don't need them editing. Black Kite (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

•  Clerk note: IP has been blocked by Black Kite ( talk · contribs). Closing. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 14:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC) reply

11 March 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

• 80.192.53.153 ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser ( log))
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • SPI Tools

Posting here on the suggestion of Andy Dingley following this discussion. I'm aware that I have previously taken this user to ANI, so I'm more than happy to accept a trouting for this, but I feel it's justified to at least raise the issue...

Moylesy98, on the occasion that they did add citations to their edits, liked to use bare URLs ( [8]) - this IP seems to be the same, as I have yet to experience them using a citation template anywhere in their edits. Their web citations generally consist of a bare URL with (usually) made up titles - see [9], [10], [11]

The IP also has the same poor grammar as Moylesy98 - the latter has entire sections of their talk page dedicated to their incorrect use of "its" and "it's" - this pattern seems to be reappearing with this IP - [12], [13].

Moylesy98 also refused to engage on their talk page - from 2015 to 2018, they only responded twice to the plethora of notices left on their talk page, only starting to engage once they were blocked. They did, however, regularly leave messages on other users' talk pages to air grievances - such as repeatedly at User talk:Tony May, plus at User talk:Redrose64 and User talk:Charlesdrakew. The IP has done the same - not a single response to notices on their talk page, nor did they engage with the ANI they were involved in. However, they have posted on my talk page multiple times at User talk:Danners430/Archive 1#WCR Edits and User talk:Danners430#Black Five Page Tampering.

Finally, it's the same general set of pages being edited by the two editors - pages about preserved steam locomotives, their depots (such as Tyseley Locomotive Works). Danners430 ( talk) 12:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Moylesy98 ( talk · contribs) was pretty badly treated in the past, bullied by one editor and then they were the one seen as 'disruptive' and given an indef block. Sadly not unusual on WP.

This is pretty obviously Moylesy98. An IP from Southport with exactly the same editing style and focus.

That said, I'm much more interested in the behavioural side of this. I've no problem (in general) with Moylesy98 returning to editing here. My concerns are much more behavioural. Their focus is on the 'news' aspect of UK railway preservation: updating articles for every completed restoration, every repaint, every location shift. Personally I don't see this as particularly encyclopedic (it's not long-term stable and goes out of date too soon) but nor would I want to prevent anybody else doing it. I'm unaware of any real project decision as to whether it should be in or out. However there are also cases of edit-warring and IDIDNTHEARTHAT, such as recently at LMS Stanier Class 5 4-6-0. Nobody needs that.

If they could show some sign of wanting to cooperate with a project, such as recognising that sometimes consensus gets to override a personal preference, then I'd be happy to have them back (and would just overlook any issue of socking). But that's not a particulary likely hope, and I also expect they'll simply be tarred-and-feathered for a minor rules infraction, because that's the wiki way. Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I would agree with this point - I don't recall interacting with Moylesy, so can only comment on the IP - but they do seem to be making generally useful edits... my gripes, which are beyond the scope of SPI obviously, are that they refuse to interact on their talk page, use fake citation titles and seem to ignore the existance of citation templates... If they were willing to interact, the community (and that includes me) would likely be more than willing to help them use citations correctly - and they would be a genuinely useful editor. Danners430 ( talk) 13:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Separately, I'd be happier to hear you say that Warszawa Marshal ( talk · contribs) was nothing to do with you. Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this - I interacted with that user in the past when they didn't appropriately source edits, which is my primary focus on Wikipedia - but I don't recall ever doing anything beyond edits and talk page discussions? Danners430 ( talk) 13:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Given that there have been Moylesy socks in the past, and they've been editing some similar areas, I'd hope they can confirm that this one was just nothing to do with them. Andy Dingley ( talk) 14:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Ah, my apologies - I misunderstood. Danners430 ( talk) 14:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

what the are the Moyslesy Socks I've had an account on this platform for a few months I don't know a lot, I am not affiliated with them at all Warszawa Marshal ( talk) 16:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Just a note - I have notified the IP, after forgetting to do so earlier. Danners430 ( talk) 15:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I have been checking the notices stating that genuine references need to be added and have been making sure that the references are genuine but I wasn't aware that responses needed to be made back. I was just adding info from RailAdvent aswell as magazines with genuine references. 80.192.53.153 ( talk) 17:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Your editing habits and problems that may exist with them are neither here nor there in the context of an SPI. An SPI, aka this page, is to ascertain whether you are Moylesy98 editing while logged out, nothing else. Danners430 ( talk) 18:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm not related to this user. I may live in the same town as them but I'm not related to whoever the person who owned this other account is. 80.192.53.153 ( talk) 18:09, 12 March 2024 (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

• The IP hasn't edited in several days, closing. Bbb23 ( talk) 13:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  The IP just made two edits ironically… is it really sensible to close this when they are still active? Danners430 ( talk) 23:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• I blocked the IP fro 3 months as a sock of Moylesy98. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply