Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JamesB17/Archive

20 March 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

5.13.192.162 claims to have been editing "within the last year". When I tried to verify this, I found the 94.177 IP addresses, which alll geolocate to Galati, Romania. However, all of the addresses only go back a few days this month. There was growth in IP activity since JamesB17 and SweetGirlLove were both blocked for vandalism on The Zeitgeist Movement (at nearly the same time, indicating meatpuppetry instead).

JamesB17 focused on downplaying political nature of TZM, as did SweetGirlLove. JamesB17 focused on downplaying conspiracy theorist nature and veiled antisemitism (1, 2, 3, 4), as did SweetGirlLove (1, 2, 3).

JamesB17 and SweetGirlLove are obvious meatpuppets, but which of them the IP socks belong to is unclear. I've only added the IP addresses above because they geolocate to the same place, but I will note that 94.177.145.5 (geolocating to California) was blocked under possible block evasion of one of the two named accounts, and 79.133.30.101 (geolocating to the Åland Islands) has some similar behavior (noted, though shrunk and struck out as they are not my primary focus). I am focusing on the Romanian IP accounts for now (because those IPs are clearly the same person), and only mentioning the others as a possible sign that we have some proxy-IP hopping editors.

JamesB17 pushed for undue weight on TZM primary sources (1, 2, 3), as did SweetGirlLove, 5.13.192.162, 94.177.145.25, and 79.133.30.101.

JamesB17 assumed bad faith from anyone who doesn't want to censor criticism (1, 2, 3, 4), as did 5.13.192.162, 94.177.145.5, and 94.177.145.25.

JamesB17 would use arguments along the lines of "there's no proof you exist either" or "you're not special" to dismiss other editors (1, 2) as did 5.13.192.162, which 94.177.145.25 restored.

JamesB17 sought to downplay the role of Peter Joseph and the Zeitgeist movies in TZM (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) as did 94.177.145.25 and 79.133.30.101  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

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


 * On going problem of Zeitgeist Film Series. Zeitgeist Facebook sites actively solicit members to edit that page a certain way which according to their F.A.Q. material basically and their party line of thinking. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, and there is a demonstrable and concerted effort to use Wikipedia for propaganda, would it be more useful to ask for semi-protection to keep off IP sockpuppets (as Checkusers are essentially forbidden to disclose publicly the IPs associated with an account)? — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 04:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That would definitely be an issue if I asked for a CU. I'm asking for judgement from the behavioral evidence, and permission to revert the actions of a blocked editor.  While there are some other IPs who are clearly recruited from elsewhere before getting discouraged and leaving, they do not demonstrate quite the same stubborn disregard for neutrality that JamesB17 did.  The Romanian IPs do.  Ian.thomson (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not a sock-puppet, I don't have to be, you called the zeitgeist movement inexistent w/o any significant proof except conjecture, I wish to help sort that out, notice how I shifted the discussion to sources and that was ignored until now. I don't care to make an account, I don't wish to make an account, editing within my IP ranges seems fine for me it should be sufficient for you as well, I am not a seasoned editor, I do not wish to be, I just want to see justice be done for the Talk:The_Zeitgeist_Movement page, you can call me a "concerned citizen" if you so dearly need to label me. The 2 ips listed upper for sockpuppet investigation indeed belong to my 2 connections. 5.13.192.162 (talk) 08:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Now where did I say the movement was "inexistent"?
 * Editing as an IP normally is fine, tendentiously editing like a previously blocked editor isn't.
 * Your call for sources was to ask us which TZM-approved propaganda we wanted to use, when the obvious answer is "independent sources, regardless of what TZM thinks of them." Ian.thomson (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The consensus is that the movement does not exist as far as I can see in the talk page, the you wasn't addressing you personally but the body of editors that edited said page. 94.177.145.25 (talk) 09:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Obviously some version of a made up by Peter Joseph movement exists in the form of some internet groups and Youtube videos. The issue here is your finding making up fake 'issues' like this and then like a host of other sock and meat puppets like the ones listed above not letting go and posing the same question a hundred times and still not getting the points given. You want to get a certain page returned because you think it is notable. You are in a conflict of interest because you are a member of said group and believe its ideas so defend defend defend even though it is just your personal opinion. The article really should not be editable by i.p.'s. which mainly come from the Facebook site and their call to arms to edit information to their way of thinking. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Both accounts are blocked indefinitely. IPs have been inactive for more than a week. All their edits are to talk and Wikipedia namespaces, so there is nothing that has to be reverted. Closing the case with no action.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)