Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jack Coppit/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Usernames, edit summaries in improper deletion noms on similar articles. ,. Both new editors very fluent in policy, Neil N  talk to me 01:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I messed up who is the older account. Sorry about that. --Neil N  talk to me 01:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

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

The hydra raises another head? I stumbled into this on January 30 when I innocently tried to improve the prose at Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal and encountered Americatcp, which I since have given a good bit of study. I am grateful that account and the others associated with Jack Coppit have been blocked but it appears another has popped up - an account apparently opened today (February 18) and posting in rapid succession to many of the same articles involved in this investigation. See Special:Contributions/TheCreaTorPonic.

Is it just accounts that are blocked or is the person behind the accounts supposed to be blocked? Dayirmiter (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ plus:
 * the unblocked accounts. Please move this to Jack Coppit, the oldest account.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Also ✅:
 * the unblocked accounts. Please move this to Jack Coppit, the oldest account.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Also ✅:
 * ✅. Closing. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * blocked., the person creating and using these accounts is considered to be blocked. If more accounts pop up please report them here. --Neil N  talk to me 16:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ to and  to the above.

Suspected sockpuppets



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

DUCK. Also same - incorrect - citation style, shared interest in military /history, wades in to edit war on child sexual abuse article, using same flawed arguments, style Neil S. Walker (talk) 17:25, 4 March 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

 * Blocked. --Neil N  talk to me 17:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

See edits on Telford child sex abuse ring and it's talk page. See focus on other areas with the term Pakistani and child abuse. Asking for CU to confirm and look for sleepers. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:33, 16 March 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

 * The following accounts are ✅ to and ❌ to Jack Coppit:
 * . Please copy/move/merge this report to Sockpuppet investigations/KungDongMing1.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. Copied to Sockpuppet investigations/KungDongMing1. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * . Please copy/move/merge this report to Sockpuppet investigations/KungDongMing1.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. Copied to Sockpuppet investigations/KungDongMing1. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * . Please copy/move/merge this report to Sockpuppet investigations/KungDongMing1.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. Copied to Sockpuppet investigations/KungDongMing1. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * . Please copy/move/merge this report to Sockpuppet investigations/KungDongMing1.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. Copied to Sockpuppet investigations/KungDongMing1. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. Copied to Sockpuppet investigations/KungDongMing1. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

WP:DUCK. Blatant block evasion, returning to old haunts to repeat tendentious behaviour. Neil S. Walker (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Additional: Although it may appear to be an unrelated IP to Jack Coppit's known previous, this user has been using TunnelBear or a similar service to evade his block. See for example Special:Contributions/185.9.16.0/22. It was using this IP that Jack Coppit made the 4 March 2018 edits - now rev del'd - to my talk page revealing that he was stalking me online and threatening to attack people who he thought were my wife and child. Neil S. Walker (talk) 14:53, 17 April 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

 * Rangeblocked by <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 04:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

User:Jack Coppit is obsessed with me and through the random magic of Google thinks he has identified me as someone with a wife and child who he has name checked before on my talk page. See diff here where he does it again. I first noticed him on this ip address as he had returned to one of his other obsessions, Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom and repeated the tendentious behaviour that earned him a block in the first place. The previous comments he posted on my talk page included threats against my so-called wife and kid and were rev deld. This another of his socks using a vpn to spoof his geolocation. Neil S. Walker (talk) 20:22, 21 April 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

 * IP now blocked. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

See below. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  12:33, 28 July 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
Sock is ✅ via CU logs. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  12:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Blatant WP:DUCK of banned user Jack Coppit. Fixation on child sexual abuse articles; War of 1812; warships. Neil S. Walker (talk) 07:45, 29 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

 * Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Blatant WP:DUCK, IP being used for WP:BLOCKEVASION by banned user. Returning to articles edited using previous sock accounts eg User:AlbionJack on Censorship in the United Kingdom, History of the Royal Navy, Fort Bowyer. User has an extremely narrow and niche area of editing interests; and as a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool repeats his folly. Neil S. Walker (talk) 11:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Out of curiosity, is their much point in repeatedly notifying the editor every time an SPI is filed? They were an editor who lasted a month and made 90 undeleted edits; why not just ignore them and deny them the publicity. ——  SN  54129  11:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * and a very persistent one at that. Blocked for a year. Closing. Favonian (talk) 11:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Blatant WP:DUCK, puppets of banned user Jack Coppit, a prolific and persistent puppeteer, and long-term disruptive editor. Check user requested as may find other sleepers, but puppeteer is known to use VPNs eg TunnelBear and other technical means to evade detection and circumvent blocks. The appearance of a new account created today (Hatespams) and a dormant account created back in March (Wonderwhatwillbenext) to replicate previous socks' activities - eg compare diff and diff - at one of Coppit's favourite watering holes sends the quacking to deafening levels. Neil S. Walker (talk) 11:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: Wonderwhatwillbenext struck as already blocked by Materialscientist as a Jack Coppit sock. Neil S. Walker (talk) 11:46, 4 November 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

 * I've undone your strikethrough: thanks for clarifying your intent but the strikethrough was unnecessary and would just look odd in the archive.
 * Wonderwhatwillbenext is ✅ to from a previous investigation. Hatespams is . . These results suffer from the fact that there are many unrelated sockmasters busy on the same IP ranges, but no accounts seen that can be connected to this case. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

WP:DUCK. See this puppet's edits to Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal - eg this - and compare them to the edits made by Jack Coppit's sock, User:Americatcp - eg this. Same pattern of slow edit warring to introduce basically the same edits. Also, couldn't resist returning to another of his favourite places, Battle of New Orleans, where he has previously socked using User:AlbionJack and User:Reallythoughbro. Obvious sock is obvious. Neil S. Walker (talk) 21:41, 13 February 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
✅, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

WP:DUCK. Returning to usual topics: child grooming and War of 1812  Neil S. Walker (talk) 07:41, 14 April 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

 * , . ST47 (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

This is clearly not a new editor. They made eight minor edits (three of which reversed their previous edits), then two edits on Talk:War of 1812, before editing the article itself two days after their first edit. Autoconfirmed and confirmed users requires users' accounts to be 4 days old and to have made 10 edits before they can edit a semi-protected article, such as the War of 1812. They are also familiar with Wikipedia policy, for example referring to NPOV.

Both Hunkydawry and Americatcp (a sock of Jack Coppit) edit from a pro-British perspective:
 * "Correct, the Us was utterly defeated." (Americatcp 10:58, 18 January 2018)
 * "My point was more that the American invading forces were defeated and beaten back every time, the British Invasion forces were not." (Hunkydawry, 19:10, 19 July 2020)

Americatcp made no edits to the article, just the talk page, while Hunkdawry has made two edits: to insert into the info-box under outcome "British maritime belligerent rights maintained" and to reinsert it when another editor removed it. Americatcp also said the British "maintained their belligerent maritime rights." (23:20, 15 January 2018) (These rights were the right to intercept ships and pressgang sailors.) In the huge discussion talk pages, no other editors said that the UK maintained belligerent maritime rights after the war, probably because the UK no longer exercised these rights against the U.S. and the U.S. never recognized them. In fact very few editors used the term belligerent rights at all as it is a fairly uncommon term. TFD (talk) 22:52, 22 July 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
, . — Berean Hunter   (talk)  04:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Closing per the above. The SandDoctor  Talk 04:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Blatant WP:DUCK at Battle of New Orleans. Master has regular and easily identifiable form for editing tendentiously on that page, and the larger topic of the revolutionary war, to insert pro-British anti-American bias to casualty figures/outcomes. Previously used a now-blocked socks eg here, returned to try again here, here and here. Similar actions fixating on the revolutionary war at Duke of Wellington's Regiment here. Neil S. Walker (talk) 10:50, 30 July 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

 * ✅, Pictogram resolved.svg All sock blocked and tagged. Closing case. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Obvious sock. Edits to articles show familiarity with technical aspects of editing. However, did not sign two talk page posts. As shown in the lengthy SPI archives, has an interest in presenting pro-British bias into articles, especially War of 1812.

Their first edit was to change the result of the War of 1812 Battle of Lundy's Lane from indecisive to indecisive tactically/British strategic victory. Edit to Thomas Pickton, a British officer accused of torture, summarized as "Added reference that Calderon was forced to stand on peg, erroneously reported as a pointed spike." Most recent edit to War of 1812 talk page says, "All of these citations are from American authors and completely ignore naval war. American authors view the war ended in a draw (as shown by these citations). Canadian and British historians it was an American defeat. suggest it be reworded that American historians hold the view and we then add the Canadian/British historians as discussed earlier in the archive." TFD (talk) 15:09, 23 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
I see a bunch of logged-out editing, but no other accounts, and I am not familiar enough with the case to make a call. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm going to rule this, but it goes downhill from there barring anything I'm missing. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 01:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm reluctant to block given the evidence available - shared pro-British POV, sure, but shared POV in itself isn't sufficient to prove sockpuppetry. Closing without action for now. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)