Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jaredkunz30/Archive

Evidence submitted by Beyond My Ken
Three of these four named accounts edit the article Archaeology and the Book of Mormon primarily, and almost exclusively:


 * Jaredkunz30 - has 146 live edits, 105 of which are to the article of its talk page (72%; many of the remaining edits are about the article on user talk pages)
 * edited from 8 February 2010 to present
 * WaltFrost - has 273 live edits, 196 of which are to the article or its talk page (71%)
 * edited from 16 May 2008 to 14 December 2009
 * Oneida NY - has 79 live edits, 61 of which are to the article or its talk page (77%)
 * edited from 2 March 2008 to 30 March 2008

The three accounts do not overlap in time. Instead, the pattern appears to be that the underlying user heavily edits the article to implant its POV, defending the edits on the talk page, until the time when they feel they need to change identity. They then retire for a bit, make a new account, and continue the tendentious editing under the new name.

The fourth account may have started the pattern:
 * John Freestone -
 * began editing on 14 January 2008 to Book of Mormon (an article also edited by WaltFrost)
 * started editing Archaeology and the Book of Mormon on 19 January 2008 - 13 of their 74 live edits (18%) are to this article
 * edited to 22 January 2009.

There may be other accounts, or IPs, used by this editor in-between these accounts, but I have not been able to determine them.

The current account (Jaredkunz30) has been the subject of a WQA complaint and a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ani#User:Jaredkunz30_Making_NPOV_warning_to_good_faith_editor.2C_POV_pushing_and_tendentious_editing. report on AN/I]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * All of the accounts have been notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, here's the Wikistalk report on these four editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As reported below by Rklawton, Jaredkunz30 has clearly stated that he or she has no compunctions about socking: "Go ahead, report me, block me...who cares? Big loss. I will create another account with a different name and email." Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have added the IP after seeing the comment by Daedalus969 below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Per ANI, user has also threatened to make more accounts. Rklawton (talk) 05:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Two interesting edits that should be taken into account.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 08:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (In the two "interesting" edits linked here by Daedalus969, Jaredkunz30 chnges signatures on two posts by 76.22.84.237 to read "Jaredkunz30" instead of "76.22.84.237".JamesBWatson (talk) 09:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC))

This looks to me like a WP:DUCK. The edits of these editors are so very similar that they would look toatlly sockpuppet-like even if there were no other evidence. Add to that the editor actually stating that they were planning to create sockpuppet accounts if blocked, the changing of signatures, timing of edits with lack of overlap, similar ways of dismissing anyone who expresses disagreement, etc etc, and the whole thing is glaringly obvious. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * While these accounts all have similar agendas and somewhat similar talk page styles, I am not convinced that this warrants a duck block without any additional evidence. What makes me most skeptical is there really wasn't much of a reason to create new accounts.  None of the early accounts ran into serious trouble.  Why drop the account and come back with a new one a few days later?  I can't see the motivation.  What I think we have here is a case where like minded people come along every few weeks, make attempts to skew these articles towards a Mormon point of view and realize that it isn't going to happen then leave.  This sort of behavior seems pretty normal for a Mormon who is brought up believing that the book is an accepted historical record, they type in Mormon Archaeology and get a page indicating that no one outside of the Mormon community buys these stories.  While I agree that jaredkunz's talk page style and some of his edits where problematic to say the least (I warned him), I would like to see an actual check user make a determination rather than someone jumping to a conclusion based on conjecture.  --Leivick (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with this being double checked and even with the blocks being over turned if there is evidence refuting socking-- Cailil  talk 20:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If these events were independent, as you suggest, then we'd see overlap from time to time. But we don't.  We see a defined rather than a random pattern.  And when we see a pattern across multiple accounts, we can deduce a common cause:  a single editor abusing multiple accounts.  In this case, there's also no downside to being wrong.  We block him for being a sock - or we block him for disruptive edits, and we can all go back to fighting a new crop of vandals.  Rklawton (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed the tags to point to the earliest account registered.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 21:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
User:Jaredkunz30 has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. As have the 3 listed accounts: User:WaltFrost, User:Oneida NY, and User:John Freestone. The IP address 76.22.84.237 has been blocked for 3 months. The IP account 76.22.84.237 is obviously the same person - but assuming good faith this may have just been the same user who forgot to log in. However the edit patterns, timings and edit content of User:WaltFrost, User:Oneida NY, and User:John Freestone conform to a WP:DUCK determination of sock-puppetry in this case. Considering the history of this case and the rhetoric expressed by Jaredkunz30 eyes should be kept on this situation-- Cailil  talk 16:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Requested by —  Dæ dαlus Contribs 21:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

All of these possible socks have been editing disruptively. Cai is basically requesting this, so I decided to make it easier for them to do. Their reasoning can be found above.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 21:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * . In light of the threat to create more accounts, might be a good idea to check if there are sleepers. Tim Song (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No other sockpuppets found, though there is a bit of other cross-traffic on the IP range. Let me know in the future if there is a specific suspect, as that will be easier to test. Dominic·t 06:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But they are all sockpuppets of each other, right?—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 06:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't have anything to compare. Two of the accounts were stale. Of the two remaining accounts, one was using a hosting company. They very well could be, but there is no conclusive evidence either way based on the IP evidence. Dominic·t 09:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)