Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JackW436/Archive

19 September 2017

 * Hi

Suspected sockpuppets



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

By way of background:
 * was indef blocked for (among a litany of other things) opening an ANI thread in which he accused another editor of a prejudiced personal attack. That ANI was based on transparently falsified "evidence". That indef block still stands.
 * popped-up very shortly thereafter and was indef blocked for overt abuse of multiple accounts. That indef block still stands.
 * popped-up very shortly thereafter and has returned to the same pattern of WP:IDHT and (franky) WP:CIR edits which contributed to the block in the first place. The editor is *still* not here for reasons compatible with project norms. And, unsurprisingly, not using this (latest) profile/puppet for constructive or collaborative contributions.

Specifically (apart from the obvious similarity in username, userboxes, use of language, capitalisation errors, circle of articles, use of sources, consistent syntax errors, and apparent self acknowledgement of socking behaviours) there is overt consistency in editing patterns. Including:
 * Throwing indiscriminate/poorly-sourced stats and synthesis into the same pool of related articles:
 * Slapping redundant navboxes every 10 paces:
 * Making the same ludicrous claims about religion in a secular state
 * And generally making the same disruptive noises as before (barely drowned out by the incredibly loud WP:QUACK). Guliolopez (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2017 (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
A total DUCK, and I have blocked the latest sockpuppet. However, Guliolopez, a sockpuppet investigation should be filed under the user name of the earliest account, in this case JackW436, not the latest suspected sockpuppet. That way, if the same sockpuppeteer is reported more than once, all the reports are together, instead of being scattered under various different titles. So can a clerk please refile this report under Sockpuppet investigations/JackW436? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  17:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

JackW436 has had a number of confirmed socks in recent months. This new incarnation follows a similar pattern of: I could go on (noting the overlapping circle of articles, near identical content additions, etc). However, as I have become convinced that a number of related guidelines likely apply, am conscious of overdoing it.... Guliolopez (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Sock naming convention - Each previous sock has been named on a variation of moniker (JackW436, JW436, JWIreland26) or geography (IrishJ123, IrishRepublic5, etc). Each with a near-sequential numeric suffix. This latest (IRL7) matching the latter two patterns.
 * 2) Spelling/capitalising/styling convention - Each sock makes the same capitalisation and styling errors. Compare for example this edit by a previous sock, to this one by the latest. (Same article, Same MOS:BOLD issue, same unusual capitalisation, etc)
 * 3) Editor engagement - Each previous sock has been engaged by other editors (myself included). A first response might seem positive. However no change in behaviour results, and further attempts at discussion met with similar unfounded claims of NPA breach. In previous cases the socks have made transparently fabricated claims of religious persecution by other editors. This latest sock displays the same behaviour - using identical language. Compare this nonsense claim by a previous sock with this one by the latest (Same language, same claim, same misunderstanding of editing practice).

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

 * - Per evidence provided. Please indef sock. Sro23 (talk) 05:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , closing. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Disappointed as I am to be having to open an SPI again, the behaviours are so obvious here that I can largely "reuse" the last SPI report. In short, is a sock of, and is engaging in the same disruptive and counterproductive behaviours of JackW436's multiple other socks.

By way of background:
 * was indef blocked for (among a litany of other things) opening an ANI thread in which he accused another editor of a prejudiced personal attack. That ANI was based on transparently falsified "evidence". That indef block still stands.
 * popped-up very shortly thereafter and was indef blocked for overt abuse of multiple accounts. That indef block still stands.
 * popped-up shortly thereafter and returned to the same pattern of WP:IDHT and WP:CIR edits which contributed to the block in the first place. That profile was blocked for SOCK and WP:NOTHERE reasons. That block still stands.
 * was created thereafter, and blocked for similar reasons.
 * was created thereafter, and has continued on the patterns.

This latest incarnation, CountyCork82, follows a similar pattern of:
 * 1) Sock naming convention - Each previous sock has been named on a variation of moniker (JackW436, JW436, JWIreland26) or geography (IrishJ123, IrishRepublic5, IRL7), with a (typically incremental) numeric suffix. The latest sock follows that convention of: "NAME_OR_PLACENAME_PLUS_1"
 * 2) Same circle of articles and same edits - Latest sock is editing the same circle of articles as before, and making the same edits as before. Compare for example this edit by IRL7 and this edit by CountyCork82
 * 3) Editor engagement - Each previous sock has been engaged by other editors. In an attempt to steer them onto the right path. Such engagements been completely ignored and overridden. Aggressive WP:IDHT. In this case, for example, myself and  spent a significant chunk of the last two days cleaning up the editors uncited changes to population stats, and advising (in edit summs and the latest sock's talkpage) about the requirement for references. In my case I was simply ignored. In Magnolia677's case edits were reverted and related advisories ignored.

I could go on, but I have wasted too much effort and breath on this sockmaster already.... Guliolopez (talk) 09:34, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Follow-up - The account in question vandalised this SPI template. An action which removed it from the list of cases currently active at SPI. I have relisted it. This type of behaviour (vandalism of SPI and ANI) is consistent with the behaviour of previous socks. (The original account, for example, was originally blocked for vandalising ANI threads). It it also consistent with the previous WP:NOTHERE behaviours. If this SPI is vandalised again, I will be escalating to ANI. Guliolopez (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2018 (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

 * Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 17:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

is another sockpuppet of. While AngloIrish77 is already blocked as such, I am opening this SPI to allow for a proper clerk close/tagging. While the loud quacking noises are obvious enough to those perhaps familiar with previous SPI discussions, specific evidence examples might include:
 * Same profile naming convention as used by previous socks. (An "Irish" prefix followed by a numeric suffix). Compare overlaps with, , , etc.
 * Same sphere of Irish/Cork articles edited by previous socks. (Almost all geo-articles around Cork, Ireland). Compare overlaps on Douglas, Carrigtwohill, Tramore Valley Park, etc.
 * Same disruptive insistence that Ireland be characterised as a "Catholic Country". (Despite the facts, constitution and others' inputs). Compare for example this claim by original profile with these examples by latest, etc.
 * Same erroneous capitalisation of words that shouldn't be. (Akin to the "wet bandits" in terms of stupid calling cards). Compare this type of thing from a previous sock to this example by most recent, etc.
 * Same insistence that census terms be changed to favour sock's preferred terminology. (Involving rewording demographics sections so that only white people are described as "Irish"). I am too jaded from this particular BS to find an example from earlier socks, but here's one from most recent, etc.

I would note that these patterns typically resurface to coincide with the start of the Irish school holidays. And hence, as with previous related SPIs, I would note that certain policies almost certainly apply. But anyway.... Guliolopez (talk) 00:55, 2 July 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

 * Closed by Bbb23, blocked as sock by Drmies. Archiving.  qedk ( t  桜  c ) 15:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)