Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Janine Thompson/Archive

31 January 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

As noted here by, the last 4 (Joan Silver, Roman.abbassi, Sarah Thinking 26, and Tim Fredricks 53) are connected by Articles for deletion/Celia Berrell, with the same style of signing and contributing (e.g. marking all edits regardless of what they are as minor), as well as a lack of user pages. None of their edits overlap in time, as well, as far as I can tell. The sockpuppeteer and first two socks (Janine Thompson, Fred Bosgra, and Joan Gelao) are from 2010 and thus stale, but linked to these also by a very similar interest in articles, such as Celia Berrell, Tom Burlinson, Sophie Lee, Pat Farmer, Cliff Richard, Layne Beachley, and others. Given the usernames, it would seem like they're not one person but instead maybe some marketing firm, especially given the names of some of the sections they've edited; however, that may just be an attempt at misdirection. For clarification, I've selected the first of the accounts that edited as the master; if the first three aren't related then Joan Silver is likely the ringleader here, as that account is IIRC the oldest. ansh 666 11:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

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

I apologise if I have done the wrong thing. I admire these creative people with distinguished careers. I was excited about the process and told others as well. It said to improve the article to help stop it from being 'deleted'. So I decided to help. All the statements are properly referenced and researched. Much of the information has been on Wikipedia in various forms for several years, as would be expected. I hope you see the quality in their contributions in their respective fields. Joan Silver (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Joan SilverJoan Silver (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * you haven't actually responded to the claim of sock puppetry. Are you operating several accounts to influence a result in the deletion discussion? LibStar (talk) 04:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello again I apologise. When I saw Celia Berrell’s site was being considered for deletion, even though her poetry is in school text books in three counties, and respected by even higher learning institutions, I told some associates of the situation. And that the words with the deletion consideration statement included improving the site. So we thought we might be able to help ‘improve the site’ and started Googling her for articles, bios and other things of interest and found quite a lot. We are very sorry if this in any way negatively impacts on Celia Berrell or others, it was never the intention; we got carried away with the fun of doing the research and the enjoyment of her poetry.

As of right now, I am retiring from ALL and ANY further activity on Wikipedia. I will also recommend that the others I know, do the same. We wish Wikipedia all the best and trust in the future other researchers will see the merit biographies on people with creative talents. Joan Silver (talk) 12:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Joan SilverJoan Silver (talk) 12:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The cohort of usernames involved in this are active in editing Sharon Davson and the 4 celebrity pages that link into Sharon Davson (where those celebrity pages have content about Sharon Davson). The pages I refer to are: Neil Diamond, Pat Farmer, Layne Beachley and Tom Burlinson. There seems to be a pattern, on these pages, of content about Sharon Davson's relation to these celebrities being added by these alleged socks and then deleted by other editors and admins only to be re-added by the same cohort at a later stage. The edits to these other pages do nothing to enhance the understanding of their subjects and editing out these links to Sharon Davson again should also be considered. This would then make the page about Sharon Davson an orphan (with Celia Berrell's page it's a walled garden). GoneWilde (talk) 08:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Given the AfD participation, I'm endorsing a check for the four accounts mentioned. The remaining accounts will need to be decided on behavioral evidence. Mike V • Talk 18:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The following accounts are.
 * The following accounts are to ✅.
 * PhilKnight (talk) 10:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The following accounts are to ✅.
 * PhilKnight (talk) 10:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 10:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 10:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 10:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 10:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 10:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 10:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 10:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I've blocked and tagged all of the accounts as a sock of Janine Thompson. I believe that the behavioral evidence is sufficient to link the stale accounts together with the confirmed accounts. Mike V • Talk 19:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

14 February 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Previous Janine Thompson socks had a habit of doing all of the following: The user Trevor Brook, I reason is a puppet. This account:
 * Having no user pages
 * Writing predominately on the page about Sharon Davson and occasionally Celia Berrell (see Articles for deletion/Celia Berrell);
 * taking an interest in the pages of certain celebrities with whom there is a connection to Sharon Davson (usually this connection is also stated on the webpages operated by Sharon Davson).
 * Ultimately (after a few edits to test the water) the socks added links from these celebrity subjects to Sharon Davson
 * Making very small edits very frequently, usually a few minutes apart
 * Usually leaving comments like: "added a reference", "a correction ", " small change ", " punctuation change ", " joined paragraphs"
 * Was created 2 days after the accounts were banned
 * has no user page
 * has edited Sharon Davson predominately (see contrib history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Trevor_Brook)
 * has written on the Sharon Davson page about Celia Berrell. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sharon_Davson&diff=645959461&oldid=645748097
 * has edited Leo Sayer. (A photo op by Sharon Davson with Leo Sayer features on no fewer than 3 websites operated by Sharon Davson and Bearing her name in the branding in some form.)
 * makes small frequent edits a few minutes apart
 * comments: "added a reference regarding ... ", "a paragraph", "added in a reference", "removed words" GoneWilde (talk) 12:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And below we see their distinctive style of signing, as well as basically the same style of writing and reasoning as before. WP:DUCK, anyone? ansh 666 21:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * clearly the same style of signing, and long winded desperate reasoning. LibStar (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

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

I do not know Janine Thompson. However, I have contributed to this article, as have others who have done the ratifying thing at ‘Wiki’ for most of the references. I have a large biography - catalogue – book on Sharon Davson and her art; so have had an interest in her work for some years. I have periodically ‘googled’ her web site, other articles about her including on ‘Wiki’. Over the years, I had played around in ‘sandboxes’, but not logged in until recently when I saw something I knew I could add on Cleo Laine and a couple of other sites, and on Sharon Davson’s. Hers the most, as I was recently on her website and knew I could add to a statement that had been made by ‘GoneWilde’ which is both on her website and I have the book supporting it. It was also easy to start 'googling' for other references, and I have found many that verify the ‘Wiki’ article. I have also found others regarding many more of her achievements that are not yet written about on ‘Wiki’. I have opened all the ‘Wiki’ references, and could give more than one reference for the citation that had been missing. Should I add anything to the page or not? The Sharon Davson article is factual, and I have made a made a full copy of it from the 'edit section' as it is a good summery with verified references. Do you want me to continue adding when I get the chance or stop? If you take it down, can I put the copy back up as it is an accurate foundation into which I and / or others could add more? Sincerely, Trevor Brook (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)Trevor_BrookTrevor Brook (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Checkuser comment: *  is a ✅ sock of some of the socks identified in the last checkuser/SPI (see the archive). Can't link to Janine Thompson, who is. Risker (talk) 05:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sock blocked and tagged. Most recent sock edits reverted and page semi'd for a month. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

CheckUser ✅ to each other. Based on the creation of Sharon Davson and its similarity to previously sock created versions I'm convinced that this is likely to be a new attempt by Janine Thompson. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:06, 6 June 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
'''All sock blocked and tagged. Closing case.''' Just noting as well that while Jdawes is the oldest account I'm going to leave Janine Thompson as the master given the links to that account and it's greater edit count. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)