Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jason1960/Archive

Report date August 4 2009, 14:09 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Frank


 * See history of User talk:70.127.200.220
 * Compare history of User talk:Jason1960
 * In particular, note the edit summaries of this edit to User talk:70.127.200.220 and this edit to User talk:Jason1960
 * User has been warned and has been blocked in both places; currently continuing to make personal attacks in edit summaries on both pages.


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

IP 70.127.200.220 was blocked by Garion96 for 72 hours for attacks by the IP on my talk page here, here, here, and here, which used the identical language as User:Jason1960 here.
 * Comments by other users

Additionally, on Lynette Fromme, the IP removed content that was partially sourced here and here, with the nice edit summary of "We can do this all month friend." I sourced the content more thoroughly here, a few hours later, the IP removed it again here. Another editor reverted it, and User:Jason1960 popped up to revert part of the same content here, here, and here. In addition, User:Jason1960 left this message on another IP talk page (Created page with 'You are an idiot.'), which was reverted and then returned by IP 70.127.200.220 here, here, here, here and here.

Finally, User:Jason1960 removed content from Suzetta Miñet here and IP 70.127.200.220 removed it again, while returning an AfD here. I'm sure there's more if it is needed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested by Frank  |  talk  14:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Behavioral evidence clearly indicate that these users are the same. MuZemike 16:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of this; looking for a checkuser to support further action, or at least a warning and a case to refer back to in the future should it become necessary. The edit-summary attacks are an indication the behavior won't stop without further action. I can easily see a scenario where the block ends, more misbehavior happens, and an indef block results. Without a sock investigation, this could continue for a while under a new account (or more than one) and we are right back to where we started. If we get a checkuser and confirmed sockpuppet identification, we have more to work with. Frank  |  talk  17:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And beyond that, the block on User:Jason1960 will expire tomorrow evening, while the block on his IP, which we know is the same person, will continue until August 11. He will be editing around a clear block when the registered account block expires, which is still a violation of WP:SOCK. Both accounts need to have extended blocks that are clearly identical to avoid this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Jason1960 was already blocked for 72 hours; the IP blocked for one week. MuZemike 16:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Block on master has been extended to indef. Please come back if disruption continues on new accounts/IPs. — Jake   Wartenberg  22:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date September 9 2009, 14:52 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Jason1960 already blocked for socking. Identical method of dealing with editors- namely, insults. Repeatedly blanks page without comment, like 70.127. Similar focus on military, hostage, and videogame-related articles. These edits (summary on the second) display a common focus on administrative authority. Edit history appears to have picked up where the others were blocked. King Öomie 14:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Edit: Hmm, perhaps I need more practice with Twinkle's sock reporter. Ah well, correct as presented. -- King Öomie 14:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by King Öomie


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions

Blocked the latest IP for a week. He's on a /15 range so it doesn't look like a rangeblock is feasible at the moment. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 15:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)