Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Capt Jack Doicy/Archive

Evidence submitted by PBS
Long running dispute over the content of History of terrorism. user:86.25.181.202 has made very similar edits to those of User:Sherzo (who's editing privileges have been indefinitely suspended over this issue). On his talk page User talk:Capt Jack Doicy states that he uses addresses from the same IP provider, and has made edits to the History of terrorism which take a similar position to Sherzo. The user account user:LSG280709 has also made edits in support of the position taken by Sherzo and is almost a single issue account. -- PBS (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The logs also show that Student television in the United Kingdom and Ireland is an article that both user:Sherzo (log) and User:Capt Jack Doicy(log) have moved the page. -- PBS (talk) 22:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by PBS (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Moved from WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Sherzo. Auntie E. (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Capt Jack and Sherzo have both restored the same version many times, plus there's this. That's good enough for a WP:DUCK in my book. The IP did as well, but that was in November. I'd have endorsed this to check on User:LSG280709 as the edits are very similar, yet definitely not the same, but that account hasn't edited in over seven months. Stale. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 01:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The page is question is restricted for IP editing, to stop abuse of the page (so no IP address has been able to edit the page for some time). Sherzo was banned recently. Captain Jack has only just returned to the page and the style of criticism is very similar comment style to the blocked user Sherzo. -- PBS (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW I am not at all sure why the page was moved as it is user Sherzo who is the puppet master if anyone is. -- PBS (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Broadly agree with Amory. Tim Song (talk) 07:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

18 July 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

WP:DUCK — Large reverts to the article History of terrorism with similar editorial comments and similar lack of explanation for the reverts on the talk page.
 * Edit by LSG280709 August 2009 — "Reverted POV and vandalism to last good version"
 * Edit by Sherzo December 2009 — "Restored the consensus version without, misleading tags, and POV pushes"
 * Edit by 86.25.181.202 November 2009 — "Shouldn't make assumptions, editors like you are the biggest problem on wikipedia why not try reading the talk or even examine the edit history!"
 * Edit by 82.41.39.174 9 June 2013  — "Undid POV push by editor Habster, alot of original research, removing sourced material etc"
 * Edit by 82.41.39.174 17 June 2013 — "reverted to better less POV version, one editor seems to think he owns the article and wants to lock it to his version."
 * Same ISP for the new IP sock and older IP sock

I am going to block the account as a sockpuppet, but only temporarily as it is a shared IP address. If another administrator review this and disagrees with my assessment then please revert my block. PBS (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

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 looks to be somewhat static, so one month should be fine. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

08 February 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

The IP addresses are from a similar location to a previous IP soc used by user:Capt Jack Doicy

Editor Interaction Analyzer 62.25.109.196 and 82.41.41.184


 * The trigger to asking for this review was the comment "restored deleted cited material seems more relevant than the pet soapbox project of the editor, at least by looking at talkpage." and the content of the edit by IP 62.25.109.196 which was very similar to that of other socks used by user:Capt Jack Doicy


 * 1) Editor Interaction Analyzer - Timeline on Talk:Red hair
 * 2) Editor Interaction Analyzer - Timeline on Talk:Faggot (slang)

These two edits are just too similar to be a coincidence, A comment made by 62.25.109.196 without a signature followed by another without signatures by 82.41.41.184

make it clear that these two IP addresses are like the edits to History of terrorism advancing the same position.Indeed to date I have not noticed one edit made by either of these IP addresses over several pages that do not support the same POV on each page. Examining the small history of List of British shadow cabinets shows that the comment added by 82.41.41.184 was added because of the revert to edits made by 62.25.109.196.
 * Editor Interaction Analyzer - Timeline on The comments
 * "Removed mistaken inclusion of Lib Dems as a shadow cabinet, as other than the official opposition, other parties can have a frontbench team, however it is POV to included lib dems and not SNP etc"
 * "This represents a political bias towards the lib dem that doesn't reflect facts."

Editors who have been directly affected by this tag team behaviour are RGloucester and Haberstr. -- PBS (talk) 13:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Hello I appear to be blocked. When I went to the page it said I could post a defence but then I was blocked from editing the page which didn't seem very fair. Also the block page said the case had been decline yet I have been blocked anyway, I don't understand this? Why does editing pages from work and home make me a sockpuppet? from looking at the 2 allegations one was regarding RGloucester a stated lib dem activist attempts to elevate the libdem spokesman team to the same level as the official opposition's shadow cabinet. You would think he should recuse himself due to his affiliation with the party, but I had no interest into being drawn into a flame war with a fanboy so after a few attempts to correct it, I abandoned it. The second case seems absolutely bizarre, a chap called Haberstr seems to be on a crusade to make articles conform to his world view and a chap called PBS, who though disagreeing with him, enables him by blocking anyone who disagrees. There are claims of consensus, yet no one evidence anyone in 2010 supports this hab chap's edits. The article was changed away from those edits for 4 years and then again for 1 away Yet other than this Hab chap no one seems to think his edits are appropriate the page, no one is adding similar material. However since it appeared he won his flame war on the talkpage the article is his spoils of war, Is he the owner of the article? Terrorism is a difficult subject at the best of times so perhaps you chaps who run this site should keep a closer eye on a article that is likely to cause controversy. Particularly if this PBS chap is silencing all dissent for whatever reason. Look you chaps don't want me on Wikipedia fine, I won't edit the site anymore feel free to block me permanently, I'm not going to force myself where I'm not wanted. I would ask you unblock work no point punishing everyone just because you don't like me. I would also ask that the chaps blocking me/running this site review this Hab chap edits and compare it to the stuff he's deleting and the stuff he is adding, to really see what is the more appropriate content. I am sorry you didn't find my work useful, but I really feel this could be a cracking tool for people

This doesn't seem like a very just system, if you go ahead and implement punishment without allowing the accused to make representations first.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Both IPs blocked for one week. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)