Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jaredsacks/Archive

Report Date 14:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Suspected sock puppets
 * (very stale)
 * (very stale)
 * (very stale)
 * (very stale)
 * (very stale)
 * (very stale)
 * (very stale)
 * (very stale)
 * (very stale)
 * (very stale)
 * (very stale)
 * (very stale)
 * (very stale)
 * (very stale)
 * (very stale)
 * (very stale)
 * (very stale)
 * (very stale)


 * Evidence submitted by Wizzy&hellip; &#9742;


 * All the above accounts edit extensively on :-
 * The user also has many edits from 41.24x.*.* anons, for instance
 * to name but a few
 * this edit was my first encounter of Jaredsacks and his anon accounts, all previous discussion had been with his logged-in persona. He denied it. He was, as per most of the other articles, promoting his agenda on http://antieviction.org.za
 * He has clearly done a remarkable amount of work, especially on Abahlali baseMjondolo, but many of the references are flimsy and point to his own website at http://antieviction.org.za Wizzy&hellip; &#9742; 14:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My worry is that Abahlali baseMjondolo is actually non-notable, and he is creating his own publicity. See for that discussion, including this edit, Leaf4's first edit. Wizzy&hellip; &#9742;  14:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Can I ask someone who knows how all this works to do / ask for a checkuser? It is entirely possible that I have the wrong puppetmaster, or that there is more than one in the list or elsewhere. I acknowledge that with the limited edit histories available, it may not be conclusive. Can checkuser look at logins, not just edits ? Wizzy&hellip; &#9742; 12:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am still of the opinion that there are socks in that list, and a similar pattern of anon editing. I also realise checkuser is not the way to go about it, and the evidence above does not stand on its own. From other users and private correspondence I am satisfied that Jaredsacks is not the perpetrator, and I withdraw my case. Wizzy&hellip; &#9742; 14:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * to name but a few
 * this edit was my first encounter of Jaredsacks and his anon accounts, all previous discussion had been with his logged-in persona. He denied it. He was, as per most of the other articles, promoting his agenda on http://antieviction.org.za
 * He has clearly done a remarkable amount of work, especially on Abahlali baseMjondolo, but many of the references are flimsy and point to his own website at http://antieviction.org.za Wizzy&hellip; &#9742; 14:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My worry is that Abahlali baseMjondolo is actually non-notable, and he is creating his own publicity. See for that discussion, including this edit, Leaf4's first edit. Wizzy&hellip; &#9742;  14:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Can I ask someone who knows how all this works to do / ask for a checkuser? It is entirely possible that I have the wrong puppetmaster, or that there is more than one in the list or elsewhere. I acknowledge that with the limited edit histories available, it may not be conclusive. Can checkuser look at logins, not just edits ? Wizzy&hellip; &#9742; 12:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am still of the opinion that there are socks in that list, and a similar pattern of anon editing. I also realise checkuser is not the way to go about it, and the evidence above does not stand on its own. From other users and private correspondence I am satisfied that Jaredsacks is not the perpetrator, and I withdraw my case. Wizzy&hellip; &#9742; 14:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My worry is that Abahlali baseMjondolo is actually non-notable, and he is creating his own publicity. See for that discussion, including this edit, Leaf4's first edit. Wizzy&hellip; &#9742;  14:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Can I ask someone who knows how all this works to do / ask for a checkuser? It is entirely possible that I have the wrong puppetmaster, or that there is more than one in the list or elsewhere. I acknowledge that with the limited edit histories available, it may not be conclusive. Can checkuser look at logins, not just edits ? Wizzy&hellip; &#9742; 12:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am still of the opinion that there are socks in that list, and a similar pattern of anon editing. I also realise checkuser is not the way to go about it, and the evidence above does not stand on its own. From other users and private correspondence I am satisfied that Jaredsacks is not the perpetrator, and I withdraw my case. Wizzy&hellip; &#9742; 14:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users
 * I was the user who originally opened a case here, at the time it was suggested that I request a Checkuser but unfortunately in South Africa almost all IP addresses are dynamic, (and they even change during session), apart for certain businesses. So a checkuser might not reveal much. The only evidence is the similar edit pattern, (and the sudden activity all at the same time, all using the same edit pattern), by all the users listed, but those are probably not strong enough evidences in themselves. As for the claim(s) of harassment, I'd like to see some evidence of this, apart for the one report I am not sure I ever dealt with any of the listed users directly. (unsigned comment by User:FFMG)
 * has made another (long) comment, which I have placed at on a sub-page of this. Wizzy&hellip; &#9742; 10:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * One would have a lot more sympathy for Jaredsacks if in addition to moaning about the accusation against him, he also acknowledged that the evidence against his political mate Sekwanele being part of a sock-puppetry scheme is very strong. Instead of picking on Lal Salaam as a non-sock-puppet based on available evidence (I agree), what does he have to say about Bjorn Martiz, Inkani, Richard2704 in which the evidence is very very strong? C'mon Jaredsacks, if you want fairness, also denounce the unfairness of Sekwanele et al in using sock-puppetry to advance your common cause! Indigenousname (talk) 11:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Indigenousname (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused party
 * Please, i'd like to clear my name as soon as possible. I'm tired of being harassed by Wizzy.  Please let me know what steps I need to take to prove that I am not one of the accused.  Thanks Jaredsacks (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I was wondering if there could be an update as to what is going and why this is going so slowly. Also just to help move things along, I wanted to point out that it many of these accusations seem arbitrary.  While I agree that myself and Sekwanele come from a similar viewpoint and sometimes make similar edits, there are other accusations of sock puppetry that seem to be completely unrelated and i'm not sure why they are being added.  For instance, user Lal Salaam has made one edit on the Anti-Eviction Campaign website while making numerous edits mostly on left politics in France and India.  There are a lot of 'leftists' out there.  What makes the accusers thing that Lal Salaam is connected to me?  Then there is the user Wopko, (s)he has made one edit on the Anti-Eviction Campaign website of very little importance.  Thats all (s)he has done.  How is that person related to me? What evidence is there that this person is connected to me other than (s)he editing the same article?  If I wanted to edit that sentence, I would have done it with my own username.  Why would a create a username just to edit that one sentence? Has a usercheck been done on these users? do they show any similarity to me at all? Jaredsacks (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

for reasons noted above. Mayalld (talk) 09:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 09:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by clerks, checkusers and patrolling admins
 * formatted for SPI Mayalld (talk) 08:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please cut down the number of suspected sockpuppets, you can't really list all the users that edited the same articles than Jaredsacks. I marked some accounts that are very old (more than 6 months). -- lucasbfr  talk 14:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Having looked around at other cases, I realise that checkuser cannot be used on accounts older than 30 days. My intent was not to fish, my intent was to demonstrate a pattern of editing from multiple accounts and anons, where the anons all came from telkom ADSL space. Wizzy&hellip; &#9742; 14:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * as already mentioned by Lucasbfr, this case seems to be based on little more than "people who hold a similar POV", rather than any firm evidence that any particular account is a sock of Jaredsacks. This scattergun approach, of making dozens of accusations, and hoping that one will be right is hugely wasteful of the time of Checkusers, admins and clerks. I am going to delist this case now. If you still believe that socking is going on, please feel free to relist, but if you do so, you MUST include diffs as evidence for each alleged sock. Mayalld (talk) 09:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Evidence submitted by FFMG
User Sekwanele was banned for been a sock of Jaredsacks, the new user, Sekwanele_2 is following the same edits pattern as Sekwanele and the username is very similar. FFMG (talk) 05:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * First, Sekwanele is not even blocked, and never has been. Second, that account hasn't edited since January so checkuser is unlikely to be helpful.  Are there are more recent Jaredsacks socks to check against?   Wknight94  talk  02:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, my bad, when I saw Sekwaneles page I, (wrongly), thought he had been blocked and created a new account Sekwanele_2 to evade the block.
 * I just confused the sock notice with a block notice. FFMG (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no intersection of edits between Sekwanele and Sekwanele_2, nor is there one between Jaredsacks and Sekwanele_2. The block logs look clean, so I don't see avoiding scrutiny as a reason to use a different account. If they are the same person, then it doesn't look like there is abusive sock puppetry going on, and it seems that Jaredsacks and Sekwanele are abandoned. MuZemike 04:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions
No action taken per above. MuZemike 00:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)