Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jack90s15/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

See below. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  11:18, 22 October 2019 (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
✅ to — Berean Hunter   (talk)  11:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Closing per the above. The SandDoctor  Talk 14:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

See below. Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2020 (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 following accounts are ✅:
 * . I believe these socks may belong to an earlier case. I have put the report on hold while I contact another CheckUser.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * With the assistance of, I can confirm that all of these accounts are socks of Sockpuppet investigations/Jack90s15. Please merge this report into the other case and then tag all the above accounts as confirmed socks of Jack90s15.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * . I believe these socks may belong to an earlier case. I have put the report on hold while I contact another CheckUser.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * With the assistance of, I can confirm that all of these accounts are socks of Sockpuppet investigations/Jack90s15. Please merge this report into the other case and then tag all the above accounts as confirmed socks of Jack90s15.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * . I believe these socks may belong to an earlier case. I have put the report on hold while I contact another CheckUser.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * With the assistance of, I can confirm that all of these accounts are socks of Sockpuppet investigations/Jack90s15. Please merge this report into the other case and then tag all the above accounts as confirmed socks of Jack90s15.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * . I believe these socks may belong to an earlier case. I have put the report on hold while I contact another CheckUser.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * With the assistance of, I can confirm that all of these accounts are socks of Sockpuppet investigations/Jack90s15. Please merge this report into the other case and then tag all the above accounts as confirmed socks of Jack90s15.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * . I believe these socks may belong to an earlier case. I have put the report on hold while I contact another CheckUser.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * With the assistance of, I can confirm that all of these accounts are socks of Sockpuppet investigations/Jack90s15. Please merge this report into the other case and then tag all the above accounts as confirmed socks of Jack90s15.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * . I believe these socks may belong to an earlier case. I have put the report on hold while I contact another CheckUser.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * With the assistance of, I can confirm that all of these accounts are socks of Sockpuppet investigations/Jack90s15. Please merge this report into the other case and then tag all the above accounts as confirmed socks of Jack90s15.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * . I believe these socks may belong to an earlier case. I have put the report on hold while I contact another CheckUser.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * With the assistance of, I can confirm that all of these accounts are socks of Sockpuppet investigations/Jack90s15. Please merge this report into the other case and then tag all the above accounts as confirmed socks of Jack90s15.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * . I believe these socks may belong to an earlier case. I have put the report on hold while I contact another CheckUser.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * With the assistance of, I can confirm that all of these accounts are socks of Sockpuppet investigations/Jack90s15. Please merge this report into the other case and then tag all the above accounts as confirmed socks of Jack90s15.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * . I believe these socks may belong to an earlier case. I have put the report on hold while I contact another CheckUser.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * With the assistance of, I can confirm that all of these accounts are socks of Sockpuppet investigations/Jack90s15. Please merge this report into the other case and then tag all the above accounts as confirmed socks of Jack90s15.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

See below. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  12:27, 10 May 2020 (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
✅ to the master:

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  12:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

After User:Driverofknowledge was blocked, this user stepped in to take his place with very similar arguments that are fairly unique on Talk:Ufology. It looks like it could be a sanitized account kept around to use after sockfarm went down. I also note a few strange overlaps on the interaction analyzer: jps (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not really the shared interest that is concerning, more the pick up where the other left off sort of behavior. The cheerleading, the same sorts of arguments about the lede, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ජපස (talk • contribs) 23:08, 12 May 2020 (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

 * This seems pretty unlikely to me. At a glance, HAL333 is an established account with consistent content contributions over several years. A shared interest in UFOs, out of over 10k edits, isn't sufficient evidence to support a check. ST47 (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * per ST47 —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 07:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The evidence also isn't sufficient to behaviorally connect the account. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 23:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Walkerofthefaith was CU-blocked and tagged on July 9.

A month later, started to edit World War II casualties / war crimes topic area. Water boy has edited several articles that Jack90s15 or his socks have:
 * World War II casualties of the Soviet Union — Water boy: . Earlier sock:
 * Soviet war crimes — Water boy: . Earlier sock:
 * Commissar order — Water boy: . Earlier sock:
 * Allied war crimes during World War II — Water boy: . Earlier sock:
 * German mistreatment of Soviet prisoners of war — Water boy: . Earlier sock: (exact same motif saying it was part of the Generalplan Ost)
 * Soviet repressions of Polish citizens (1939–1946) — Water boy: . Earlier sock: (changing the casualty number in the same manner)

Too many coincidences for an account that has just 67 edits. Pudeo (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' I Just started editing I am interested in Word War II, I was putting back the earlier version. Do to the editions of Soviet atrocities that aren't considered war crimes. The other user is possibly the same IP that added the Soviet atrocities, that are not considered war crimes. I only have one account and the majority of my edits are not World War II related, like the banned user you think I am. If you look I only made two edits that are the same style as the banned user that was a strange Coincidence, also a lot of people do like the topic of World War II and do edit pages that the banned user probably did edit before. I have been looking around a came across https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Topic_ban I would take a Topic ban on World War II for anytime giving to prove I am not a Sock puppet.I was a water boy (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Also for the Soviet Pows edit it does say on the General plan Ost page in source 5 sates "During the war, many of the Nazis' activities were carried out with Generalplan Ost in mind. They massacred millions of Jews in Eastern Europe, in addition to millions of Soviet prisoners of war" https://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%206247.pdf. That is Why I made that edit. Also someone else edited the number for the polish deaths under the Soviets more like the banned user then I did.

The IP before me https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soviet_repressions_of_Polish_citizens_(1939%E2%80%931946)&diff=969903564&oldid=968144408 (The claim that 150,000 Poles were killed under Soviet occupation is not supported by the article linked, which actually uses that figure in reference to deaths under Nazi occupation. I also removed the reference to another "uncomfirmed" estimate of 500,000, since it is neither confirmed nor widely accepted.)

The Banned user https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soviet_repressions_of_Polish_citizens_(1939%E2%80%931946)&diff=954147351&oldid=954144954 The source was talking about all the Soviet satellites. VLADIMIR PUTIN has rarely paid much attention to the sensitivities of former Soviet satellites. Requests to return property looted during the war usually meet studied indifference. Any demand for an apology for Soviet-era crimes prompts a brusque restatement of history as seen from the Kremlin, along the lines of “we freed you from Nazism: be grateful.

I was a water boy (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅ to Driverofknowledge (via CU logs)., closing. Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 23:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

For the record, see below. Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 19:02, 9 September 2020 (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
✅,, closing. Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 19:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

For the record, see below. Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 21:02, 6 October 2020 (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

 * ✅,, closing. Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 21:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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


 * Starwarsfanforlife's first edit summary had Jack90s15-esque grammar: I put a new tag do to the fact secondary and tertiary sources were added. "Do to" has been used by previous socks and the original account as well. He has edited many articles frequented by previous socks like Battle of Moscow and German mistreatment of Soviet prisoners of war. He has also adjusted WWII-related casualty numbers which is Jack's pet peeve.
 * Similarly, 7645ERB registed on the same day as Starwarsfanforlife. He also uses the "do to" grammar mistake: and only edits World War II casualties / war crimes topics. 7645ERB is suspecting other users of being sockpuppets despite having been registered for less than a month himself.

Both users use abrupt capitalizations, such as now its Grammatically correct / 34m was for all that Served on all fronts, like previous socks:. Also visual edits and Twinkle are being used. Pudeo (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You have edited 14 distinct articles (per Xtools), and as far as I see Jack90s15 or his socks have also edited 10 of them. . --Pudeo (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' But none of my edits have been World War II casualties or War crime pages? Even the editor interaction utility shows, that they've been general Soviet and genocide related pages. Also the reason I accused somebody of being a sock, is I saw the other user say they were, so I tried to help them out with their case.7645ERB (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC) When looking at the editor Interaction analyser, I have not edited 14 pages that the banned user or the other user (who is my friend)have at all.https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=Jack90s15&users=Starwarsfanforlife&users=7645ERB Also I live next to a highly populated orthodox Russian Jewish community. Part of one big School District that has free Wi-Fi available, multiple people do edit Wikipedia from my community. The other account is my friend's account as we did make our accounts the same day. But we don't edit the same pages as you can see I'm being honest since honesty goes a long way.7645ERB (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2020 (UTC) We both are using the IP address range for are accounts WP:SHARE as it does not have a password for it so any one can use it.7645ERB (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * My friend called me and told me the situation we both publicly declared. We know each other and share the same IP, range we hope the honesty can let us stay in the community.Starwarsfanforlife (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Both accounts added originally on 31 October are ✅, with a few extra.   Maxim (talk)  13:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Closing per the above. The SandDoctor  Talk 14:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Another whack-a-mole sock. First edit is reverting another likely sock in Soviet war crimes and citing the MarquinhosWikipediano SPI: Special:Diff/990066634. I doubt a new user would be familiar with the sockpuppet investigation page.

In late August, Jack90s15 sock "I was a waterboy" was reverting the MarquinhosWikipediano sock PastaEditor2 in the same article: Special:Diff/975816254. I can't think of anyone else seeing the grammar in the edit summaries. Pudeo (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2020 (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

 * - I was pretty suspicious of Foodofus (which I keep misreading as Foo Doofus) finding their way to SPI, I just didn't know whose sock it was (thanks ). TheFoodofus as a suspected sock, endorsing to verify the connection and check for sleepers. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * - Mz7 (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * TheFoodofus is to previous socks. In the course of my check, I discovered the following accounts which are ✅ to the past Jack90s15 socks in the archive:
 * these two. Mz7 (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Tagged per comments by GN and Mz7. Close. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 00:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * these two. Mz7 (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Tagged per comments by GN and Mz7. Close. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 00:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Last socks were CU'd on November 27 and this account registered on November 28. Edits Jack's favorite topic World War II casualties: Special:Diff/992004136. There is Jack-esque grammar in the same diff such as capitalizing "Pages". The IP range already has been blocked once for "Abusing multiple accounts: User:Jack90s15" and has continued editing in the topic area and feuding with MarquinhosWikipediano socks as in earlier reports.

A sleeper check should be done because he has a habit of operating multiple socks each time. At this rate he's been creating multiple socks immediately after the last ones have been blocked. Yawn. Pudeo (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' Yea that's me Jack90s15 using that IP range to stop MarquinhosWikipediano it was a good run but its time for to move on and do more things in life.2601:81:C400:DC30:1873:7132:8856:B8BA (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I've reverted the IP's talkspam; I don't have the time to follow up here but I've blocked the /64 for three months. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 20:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Also found and ✅:

Indef'd and tagged accounts. No comment in respect to the reported IP.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   20:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Closing Mz7 (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets


the edditing patterns of these IPS match with past jack socks, also, according to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soviet_war_crimes&type=revision&diff=1005226744&oldid=1005226342, he claims exactly that hes undoing hes own sock edits from ultrawikipedian, which, could be false but doing to the behaviour of the ip and the accounts involved, is pretty strange, the other, 94 something, had the same behaviour, undoing edits saying undoing my sock edits its marquinhoswikipediano, basically claiming he is marquinhos? i dont know about you guys, but i think its pretty much a confession of block evasion.

the other ips listed also had the same behaviour, same interest on the same pages and clear vandalism, comparing the edits of them with past jack socks, you can clearly link these ips to jack, jack appears to just dont care anymore about being blocked as long as he vandalizes some articles for fun, ill bring more information if i can, ill also bring what is believed to be marquinhos to marquinhos SPi.

also, 2 of these ips that start with 177 are clearly linked to each other, as when one reported, the other also reported, the 187 something did the same, so if one of them gets confirmed, the other 2 are also socks due to their basically equal edditing pattern and the reason that, new ips wouldnt know about an SPI or reports without the owner having past interactions with this on other ip or account, geolocation also seems to be close.

in case 177.155.203.67 gets confirmed, these two can also be blocked: Mariothecoolpumbler (talk) 10:30, 18 February 2021 (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

 * Checkuser can't be used to confirm accounts to IP addresses. Only accounts to accounts can be confirmed. Declining CU...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   19:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

oh sorry i didnt know im quite new to wikipedia. Mariothecoolpumbler (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Nothing actionable here. IP's stale. Sro23 (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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


 * edit by Thelostone41. Compare to this edit by Driverofknowledge (one of secondary accounts of Jack90s15). Please compare edit summaries. Those are similar edits on the same page with very long edit summaries claiming something about "Holocaust denial". The claim is peculiar because this page has nothing to do with Holocaust denial.


 * There is also significant page overlap and a similar POV with Driverofknowledge and the master account. Almost any page Thelostone41 edited so far was previously edited by the master account, including interactions with the same users. I also interacted previously with Jack90s15, and Thelostone41 talks and behave exactly like him. My very best wishes (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Per discussion below, I think Thelostone41 is also a secondary account of blocked user Nicky3331. Can this be checked, please? My very best wishes (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If so, is not he a sock of Nicky3331? Should I submit another SPI request? My very best wishes (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users
This seems like a retaliatory SPI. I looked into the archive of this user it looks like they are not from where I am. I am from Canada here's one Public Ip that I used to edit and I am using right now https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ShariaPortfolio.Thelostone41 (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If so, what is your relation to account Nicky3331 who created same promotional draft you just edited? My very best wishes (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I made this New account by policy to show where. I am and to be used on Public networks also I have no relation to him I worked for them that why I did some editing on that page.Thelostone41 (2) (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * So, do you still work for them? The edits by the IP (if this is you) were made just a couple of weeks ago. My very best wishes (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * As of now I do not and I know.Thelostone41 (2) (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, you just created yet another account during active SPI case, only to continue your reverts using multiple accounts: ... My very best wishes (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I will not let somebody else get blocked for what I did in the past I am Jack90s15 the CU will see this with the Cu information. Just want to movie on from Wikipedia but before I do will not let some else get banned for my sockpuppting.Account 3000 (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That was very fast, so you guys must be connected somehow. My very best wishes (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * No TBH I just watch this page do to MarquinhosWikipediano trolling my sock page as you can see from the history of my sock page.Account 3000 (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * and are ✅ to one another, which shouldn't be a surprise since the user is here saying so. It is / to the master.  is blocked as a self-admitted sock of Jack90s15 (see this diff). Running CU on the account, it is ✅ to .  ~Oshwah~  (talk)  (contribs)   17:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not convinced this is Jack90s15. Closing without action. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Pro forma, per checkuser. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2022 (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
Confirmed. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)