Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jakeshapiro/Archive

Evidence submitted by Cirt
All of the accounts have made either WP:SPA sole edits to the article J. David Shapiro, and/or have added wholly unsourced material to this WP:BLP article. Cirt (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Special:Contributions/Surfdude08
 * 2) Special:Contributions/Jedi008
 * 3) Special:Contributions/Darthzaman
 * 4) Special:Contributions/Fdesmet

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Cirt (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Violations of WP:BLP and disruptive editing using socks. Cirt (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

for CU on all accounts, thanks, SpitfireTally-ho! 14:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jakeshapiro = Surfdude08 = Jedi008. Darthzaman is ❌. Fdesmet is . Dominic·t 06:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. In that case, the account would be another one to deal with, and tag - in addition to those previously listed above. Cirt (talk) 06:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Actually, from the logs, the account appears to be the oldest and is therefore the master, not  as previously thought. Cirt (talk) 06:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Jedi008 and Surfdude08 indefinitely blocked and tagged, Jakeshapiro blocked 2 weeks. The other two accounts don't readily fit the MO of the other socks, I'm afraid. –MuZemike 15:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nod, good judgment decision, agree with the close. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Cirt
Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Same pattern as prior ✅ socks, at Sockpuppet investigations/Jakeshapiro/Archive, namely addition of unsourced info to BLP page.
 * All contributions are to same article as the prior socks, J. David Shapiro - WP:SPA behavior, despite the block and user talk page comments left at the main sockmaster account.
 * Checkuser will be helpful for technical checkuser data investigation, however a block on the sock can be made by an administrator based on the strong behavioral evidence of socking.
 * Note: The last time it was discovered that the master account has been engaging in socking, it was blocked for two weeks. -- Cirt (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Bonkers2010 hasn't edited since April - this will need to be decided on behavioral evidence alone. TN X Man 14:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, please see note above, this should still be acted upon by administrators, based on the strong behavioral evidence that it is the same sockmaster, again. -- Cirt (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Master & Sock indef blocked. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 04:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)