Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JarvisJones95/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
Based on their recreation of User:Orca Vision Inc./sandbox, they appear to be a sock.

Please let me know if I'm not supposed to create an SPI for already blocked accounts. I feel as though doing so still at least creates links between accounts to identify and IP ban sock masters, which is why I'm submitting. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:13, 23 August 2022 (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

 * . Tagged as suspected. Noting the above are also blocked as socks. Closing. --Jack Frost (talk) 00:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( original case name)

Three new potential socks. re-created User:Sturgis Coffee Shop/sandbox (per edit logs), which was originally created by Orca Vision Inc. sockpuppet. hasn't been blocked yet but the username (SDP) appears to be an abbrevation of sockpuppet and it also made minor edits to Yankton, South Dakota, which would become a target for sockpuppet accounts. didn't edit any of the targets that the Orca Vision Inc. socks edit, but created the account on the Somali Wikipedia  and  and it was also blocked for representing a well-known person. 192.181.135.62 (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2022 (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 already blocked and locked. Closing. . --Jack Frost (talk) 04:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * On reconsideration; . --Jack Frost (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Spamming Timeline of South Dakota just like previous socks, this time adding nonsense about a fictional water raft ride in Rapid City, South Dakota. 74.218.222.50 (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2022 (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

 * Already blocked and tagged. Closing. firefly  ( t · c ) 11:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
all blocked; RC1 g-locked. I've not slacked off tagging them, per User:Jack Frost on 8/26, so I'm filing here to make sure they are all listed even if not in a category. However, a few are being created a day, seemingly even while there should be autoblocks in effect, for many days now, so I'd like CU to look for an underlying IP to end the whack-a-mole. DMacks (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2022 (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

 * Not tagging was more about tenuous links in already blocked / locked accounts and whether it was worth the effort, though on re-looking I'm going to go back and tag those accounts as the links are clearer than I remember. Separately to that, - Per above rationale, this is getting a bit tiresome so any rangeblock to offer some relief would not go astray. --Jack Frost (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Checking this and the previous 2 filings together, all of these are ✅ to each other -- RoySmith (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * - Please rename to the oldest case (JarvisJones95, but verify that) and retag all of these as confirmed. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And right on cue, up pops:
 * promptly indef'ed by User:Ohnoitsjamie. And this is interesting. DMacks (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * promptly indef'ed by User:Ohnoitsjamie. And this is interesting. DMacks (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Moved from Sockpuppet investigations/Orca Vision Inc. . for unlocked accounts. Closing. --Jack Frost (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * and, for reference. . . --Jack Frost (talk) 06:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Just noting for the record, post-close, that all this looks exactly like Incorrigible Troll / Starship9000. User: blocked and tagged. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Enough so that the cases should be merged? --Jack Frost (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe I'm right but I can live without merging at this time. I can probably have a deeper look and round up something incontrovertible. Water rides? Starship9000 is all about that. CU also tells me so much more. But let's put it off eh. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * After reading something somewhere I'm now sure I'm 100% right. I'll just ping FYI. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice. I was looking over the case earlier today, saw zz's name all over it and thought "Great, he's got this, not my problem.".  And now you punt it back to me :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Any time. I remain indifferent about doing anything further at this time. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at Sockpuppet investigations/Starship9000/Archive where DoRD wrote, It doesn't matter who is creating the accounts as long as they're blocked and cleaned up behind. There's much wisdom in that.  As a practical matter, comparing CU data from 2016 to 2022 is almost worthless.  People change ISPs.  They get different hardware and software.  They move around the world.  They learn new tricks.  So, yeah, I think just leave this as is. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
I first became suspicious when I saw that triggered an edit filter I maintain numerous times. When looking at the edit history of the user's talk page, I saw the repeated addition of the sock template by the user and with the master account parameter set to. After reviewing the SPI archives for this user, and reviewing previous blocks and subsequent global locks set on some of the listed accounts, I performed a CU on this user. The findings that resulted from the investigation are listed below. All confirmed accounts listed below will be indefinitely blocked and tagged. Creating this SPI report retro-actively for historical and record-keeping purposes.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:28, 6 September 2022 (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

 * Also found and ✅ to one another, and the sock account above:
 * The user did come back as being within the range that I checked, and the user edited close to the time frame as some of the most recent sock users. However, looking into the technical evidence for this user in-depth shows long-term use of this range, and outside of the timelines that other socks were abusing it. Hence, I am classifying this account just as "possible".
 * All accounts (with the exception of Partyclams) have been indefinitely blocked and tagged. Leaving open for a behavioral investigation of Partyclams...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The user did come back as being within the range that I checked, and the user edited close to the time frame as some of the most recent sock users. However, looking into the technical evidence for this user in-depth shows long-term use of this range, and outside of the timelines that other socks were abusing it. Hence, I am classifying this account just as "possible".
 * All accounts (with the exception of Partyclams) have been indefinitely blocked and tagged. Leaving open for a behavioral investigation of Partyclams...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The user did come back as being within the range that I checked, and the user edited close to the time frame as some of the most recent sock users. However, looking into the technical evidence for this user in-depth shows long-term use of this range, and outside of the timelines that other socks were abusing it. Hence, I am classifying this account just as "possible".
 * All accounts (with the exception of Partyclams) have been indefinitely blocked and tagged. Leaving open for a behavioral investigation of Partyclams...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The user did come back as being within the range that I checked, and the user edited close to the time frame as some of the most recent sock users. However, looking into the technical evidence for this user in-depth shows long-term use of this range, and outside of the timelines that other socks were abusing it. Hence, I am classifying this account just as "possible".
 * All accounts (with the exception of Partyclams) have been indefinitely blocked and tagged. Leaving open for a behavioral investigation of Partyclams...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The user did come back as being within the range that I checked, and the user edited close to the time frame as some of the most recent sock users. However, looking into the technical evidence for this user in-depth shows long-term use of this range, and outside of the timelines that other socks were abusing it. Hence, I am classifying this account just as "possible".
 * All accounts (with the exception of Partyclams) have been indefinitely blocked and tagged. Leaving open for a behavioral investigation of Partyclams...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The user did come back as being within the range that I checked, and the user edited close to the time frame as some of the most recent sock users. However, looking into the technical evidence for this user in-depth shows long-term use of this range, and outside of the timelines that other socks were abusing it. Hence, I am classifying this account just as "possible".
 * All accounts (with the exception of Partyclams) have been indefinitely blocked and tagged. Leaving open for a behavioral investigation of Partyclams...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The user did come back as being within the range that I checked, and the user edited close to the time frame as some of the most recent sock users. However, looking into the technical evidence for this user in-depth shows long-term use of this range, and outside of the timelines that other socks were abusing it. Hence, I am classifying this account just as "possible".
 * All accounts (with the exception of Partyclams) have been indefinitely blocked and tagged. Leaving open for a behavioral investigation of Partyclams...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The user did come back as being within the range that I checked, and the user edited close to the time frame as some of the most recent sock users. However, looking into the technical evidence for this user in-depth shows long-term use of this range, and outside of the timelines that other socks were abusing it. Hence, I am classifying this account just as "possible".
 * All accounts (with the exception of Partyclams) have been indefinitely blocked and tagged. Leaving open for a behavioral investigation of Partyclams...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The user did come back as being within the range that I checked, and the user edited close to the time frame as some of the most recent sock users. However, looking into the technical evidence for this user in-depth shows long-term use of this range, and outside of the timelines that other socks were abusing it. Hence, I am classifying this account just as "possible".
 * All accounts (with the exception of Partyclams) have been indefinitely blocked and tagged. Leaving open for a behavioral investigation of Partyclams...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * All accounts (with the exception of Partyclams) have been indefinitely blocked and tagged. Leaving open for a behavioral investigation of Partyclams...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Not seeing any of the usual behaviour. Closing without action in relation to . --Jack Frost (talk) 06:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
User requested to be unblocked, but was not directly blocked. After a few requests they provided an IP that was under a checkuser block due to this LTA. Could be collateral damage but the comment about "adding value" gives me pause. 331dot (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2022 (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
It seems unlikely to me. Let's ping, since they've put down a huge hard block on Special:Contributions/2600:387::/43. There's already huge collateral, and I'd expect a whole lot more. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the kind of block where I've gone ahead and softened it already. If Oshwah wants to talk about it, let's talk. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Zzuuzz - No need for discussion at all, actually! Thank you for softening that range block I applied. I actually didn't mean to end up applying it as a hard block like that. I was debating it at first, then quickly realized that it wasn't necessary. Apparently I didn't un-tick the box before saving... Weird...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   18:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Closing. To repeat, this one seems unlikely. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Those three accounts are locked globally but they haven’t been blocked yet and they have continued the spamming from Orca Vision/JarvisJones95. and didn’t edit here but they we’re both created by  from Wikisource. admitted to being a sock and was spamming Rapid City, South Dakota, which was a target for previous socks. 8.48.249.137 (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2022 (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

 * Already globally locked. Closing. The master here is tagged as a sock of, however per Sockpuppet investigations/JarvisJones95/Archive I'll hold off on a merge. --Jack Frost (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Added material that sounded like adspeak on the Sioux Falls, South Dakota, the sockmasters' targets. (see here). Magnatyrannus (talk &#124; contribs) 23:14, 4 October 2022 (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

 * I'm not convinced - the socks in this case aren't just adding promotional material, but rather pushing rather specific hoaxes. This IP is just updating airport destination lists. . firefly  ( t · c ) 07:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)