Misplaced Pages

:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sussexman: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser | Case Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:36, 20 February 2008 editAlison (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators47,244 edits Undid revision 192862105 by 89.243.203.214 (talk) - trollinh← Previous edit Revision as of 20:34, 26 May 2008 edit undoThatcher (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users28,287 edits archiveNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
<!-- BEGIN ARCHIVE TEMPLATE --><noinclude>
<!--
If you are adding a new request for this user please add it above this notice at the top of the page. Only the latest request will appear on the checkuser page. Please don't create a separate page with a different name.
-->
{| class="messagebox"
| style="text-align: center" | If you are creating a new request about this user, please add it to the top of the page, above this notice. Don't forget to add </br><span style="font-size: 125%">'''<nowiki>{{</nowiki>{{FULLPAGENAME}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki>'''</span></br> to the checkuser page . Previous requests (shown below), and this box, will be automatically hidden on ] (but will still appear here).
|}
<div style="background: #f5fffa; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px;">
<center>''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <font color="red">'''Please do not modify it'''</font>.</center>
<!-- END ARCHIVE TEMPLATE -->

=== ] === === ] ===
{{rfcu box|case=Sussexman|filed=03:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)}} {{rfcu box|case=Sussexman|filed=03:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)}}
Line 123: Line 134:
#{{userlinks|Immanuel can't}} #{{userlinks|Immanuel can't}}
Considering the level of abuse here, including canvassing, logged out editing, and legal threats, I see no reason to be coy about accounts that currently appear to be well-behaved but are obviously the same individual. ] 12:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC) Considering the level of abuse here, including canvassing, logged out editing, and legal threats, I see no reason to be coy about accounts that currently appear to be well-behaved but are obviously the same individual. ] 12:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

<center>''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font></br>Subsequent requests related to this user should be made ''above'', in a new section.</center></div>
</br>
</noinclude>

Revision as of 20:34, 26 May 2008

If you are creating a new request about this user, please add it to the top of the page, above this notice. Don't forget to add
{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sussexman}}
to the checkuser page here. Previous requests (shown below), and this box, will be automatically hidden on Requests for checkuser (but will still appear here).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

Sussexman

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch • talk
Filed: 03:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This may be quite complex, so please bear with me while I try and keep it as concise and to the point as possible, while still providing the information needed. I'm unsure if one person is controlling all four accounts, but there's plenty of evidence connecting them to each other to varying extents.

Sussexman was initially blocked on 20 June 2006 for launching off-Wiki legal action against another editor in regards to Gregory Lauder Frost, more details here (note also it says the same editor was subjected to legal action from Michael Keith Smith, and also see here). Chelsea Tory's account was created on 23 June 2006. With his fifth edit the next day, he remarked that "He has for at least 6 months, conducted a relentless campaign against all articles and individuals connected with the Conservative Monday Club and the Western Goals Institute and his motives are clearly political rather than editorial", which seems remarkably well informed for a "brand new" editor. Him either being a sockpuppet or close associate has been brought up before, for example here and more pertinently here where Essjay (remember him?!) said according to checkuser it was probable he was Sussexman. Quite early on he also embroiled himself in the Gregory Lauder Frost situation. I don't know exactly when or how deep due to the article being deleted, but for example see here and here. He's also been campaigning for Sussexman to be unblocked, for example see here, here, here. Counter-revolutionary mysteriously appealed for an unblock here in August 2007, for no discernible reason. Sussexman posted an unblock request on 24 January 2008, quickly supported by Chelsea Tory, who knows Sussexman will behave and supported by Counter-revolutionary. Interesting, so I decided to investigate further.

The edits of three out of the four accounts listed above have many edits to extremist right-wing Conservative Party members, former members and associated groups such as John R. Pinniger, Merlin Hanbury-Tracy, 7th Baron Sudeley, Western Goals (UK), Gregory Lauder Frost, Western Goals Institute, Conservative Democratic Alliance, International Monarchist League, Conservative Monday Club, Michael Keith Smith, Lord Nicholas Hervey, Harvey Ward etc

All three active accounts were also used in ArbCom elections in December, in particular Giano's: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Giano II - Chelsea Tory, Counter-revoltionary and David Lauder.

There's also been !votestacking in contentious AfDs, such as these: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Diarmuid O'Neill saw all three active accounts !vote to delete - Counter-revolutionary, David Lauder and Chelsea Tory

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Federal Commonwealth Society saw all three active accounts !vote to keep - Counter-revolutionary, an IP editor (more on that shortly), Chelsea Tory and David Lauder. Note that the IP editor also !voted in this discussion about honorific prefixes, which David Lauder, Chelsea Tory and Counter-revolutionary all !voted in as well.

Staying on the subject of IPs, there's always BT IPs kicking around this set of editors and articles. I'm sure there's many more I've not had chance to track down, but these are telling:

BT IPs are also linked to David Lauder as well. For example see here, where a member of ArbCom which checkuser confirmed that an IP used for !votestacking in a contentious AfD was David Lauder despite his denials. The plot thickens....

Sussexman

Chelsea Tory

Counter-revolutionary

More details of edits per account to the pages in question - click to view

Now I'm more than aware simply editing the same small group of articles doesn't make people sock or meatpuppets of each others, otherwise I'd be a sockpuppet of various editors about Irish republicanism. However there's more evidence that these people are not only very closely associated to the articles they are editing, but it's inconceivable that they don't know each other. The images they have uploaded are very important.

Now as you can see, Counter-revolutionary is clearly quite close to the people/groups he edits, and attended the same dinner in 1989 as Chelsea Tory who was also taking photographs. He's got photos of Gregory Lauder Frost over well over a ten year period in England, Warsaw, Croatia and Brussels, he must know him surely?

Other images are quite interesting too, in particular the licenses including punctuation:

Image upload by Chelsea Tory (just the one total upload sadly):

  • "Private amateur photo of President Cristiani taken in London in Sept 1989. No copyright."

Image uploads by David Lauder (there's plenty with a similar summary, small sample follows):

  • "Fading old colour photo of Foulden Village. No copyright."
  • "Private photograph. No copyright."
  • "Private photo taken by me in 1997. No copyright."
  • "Private photo taken in 1984. No copyright."
  • "Private photo taken by me. No copyright."

Sussexman tended to make edits to Scotland and aristocracy related articles such as Frederick Marquis, 1st Earl of Woolton, Katharine Stewart-Murray, Duchess of Atholl, Manny Shinwell, Baron Shinwell, Henry of Scotland, while Chelsea Tory doesn't. Is there a reason for this? I believe there is. Both the Chelsea Tory account and David Lauder account are sockpuppets of Sussexman and are controlled by the same person. Chelsea Tory edits the political articles, while David Lauder sticks to the Scotland, aristocratical and Lauder related articles. There's obviously some link between David Lauder and Gregory Lauder Frost, which ties David Lauder into Sussexman and Chelsea Tory. Counter-revolutionary is tied into the whole saga as well, with his clear connection to Gregory Lauder Frost, same concentration of articles, and involvement in the campaign to unblock Sussexman. I feel a checkuser is required to determine exactly who is controlling what accounts in this whole saga, especially considering the !votestacking in AfDs and (worse still) ArbCom elections. One Night In Hackney303 03:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

information Note: - this is a serious quantity of evidence & it's taken some time to process here. Accepting this case on the basis that there is strong evidence of abusive sock-puppetry here. The suggestions of votestacking are particularly worrying. Given that one of the users above has been banned for making RL legal threats in the form of solicitor's letters and is now seeking unblock, supported by the others mentioned above, this certainly warrants addressing - Alison 07:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 Confirmed - the following. Note that this does not confirm the people are one, but I can confirm that they have edited from the same computer, sometimes within a minute of each other. There is also another account here which I shall not name as it's unrelated to the evidence above. All of the three accounts below appear to have logged out to edit at various times, though I will not comment on the IP addresses whatsoever per privacy policy as it is unwarranted here.
  1. Sussexman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  2. Chelsea Tory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  3. David Lauder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
 Likely - has also edited from the same computer at the same time and place as the above but not nearly as often. This points more to collusion and meat-puppetry than they being the same individual. Note that this has happened at disparate IP addresses.
  1. Counter-revolutionary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
There are also other  Confirmed accounts associated with User:Counter-revolutionary which I shall not name as they are unrelated to the evidence above. They certainly edit at the same time and IP address as CR but are not being used abusively. Thus, I am reluctant to disclose these at this time.
information Note: - it is also confirmed that User:Sussexman has edited anonymously, even though he is still banned. Note that collusion amongst the above accounts was also discussed at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Giano II#Suspected canvassing and I can confirm that User:Chelsea Tory and User:David Lauder both voted from the same computer within a short period of time of each other when voting at the ArbCom elections. Association was denied at the time. I note also that User:Chelsea Tory canvassed others for the unblocking of Sussexman - Alison 08:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
information Note: - I'm requesting a second checkuser opinion as there have been accusations of bias due to my nationality - Alison 20:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 Deferred another checkuser for second opinion - Alison 20:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed

  1. Sussexman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  2. Chelsea Tory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  3. David Lauder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  4. Counter-revolutionary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  5. Christchurch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  6. Immanuel can't (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Considering the level of abuse here, including canvassing, logged out editing, and legal threats, I see no reason to be coy about accounts that currently appear to be well-behaved but are obviously the same individual. Thatcher 12:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.