Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jason James Scott/Archive

Report date May 27 2009, 03:34 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets
 * - username blocked on 22 May 2009
 * - username blocked on 23 May 2009

I am requesting a sockpuppet investigation to (1) determine whether the accounts are sockpuppets or meatpuppets, and (2) to determine what the appropriate remedy is in light of the fact that the four accounts combined have made only one unconstructive edit outside userspace (diff). Had these four accounts made their edits in the mainspace, their actions would have constituted building a walled garden hoax (see revision history of User:Jason James Scott/Sandbox for false claims regarding ownership and branding of Virgin Group). All accounts notified of this investigation request. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 03:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Black Falcon
 * 1) Jason James Scott's account was created on 20 May 2009 and the three other user accounts followed on 22 May 2009 within about five hours of one another.
 * 2) Each account proceeded to create a "/Sandbox" user subpage containing music-related information: User:Jason James Scott/Sandbox, User:Sony Music Entertainment/Sandbox, User:Thankful (Album)/Sandbox, User:V Festival/Sandbox.
 * 3) Each account has edited User:Jason James Scott/Sandbox.


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * All 4 accounts are very clearly the same person, but it doesn't look like abusive socking. Rather, it looks like a new user is creating some kind of personal fantasy world. I don't see that blocking this user's main account would be appropriate. I've left the user a note, so he knows that his editing has come to attention, and isn't acceptable as it stands. That ought to be sufficient. You might wish to block the V Festival account as a clear sock and username violation, but that would be more for tidiness than anything else. Mayalld (talk) 07:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

newbie user offered advice. No further action necessary at this time. Mayalld (talk) 07:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 07:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date June 3 2009, 02:38 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * Evidence submitted by Versageek

These are all already confirmed via Checkuser - I just want to get them into the database & attached to the exiting archives for Jason James Scott. Feel free to close & archive.


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions

Report date June 13 2009, 22:30 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Just blocked another two blatant socks for the usual behaviour of creating hoax articles in userspace (see deleted contribs.). Requesting checkuser to determine if he's created any more accounts or junk articles since the previous crop of socks was uncovered. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Kurt Shaped Box (talk)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC) to check for sleepers. If an IP block can be placed that'd be great too, but looking at the archive I'm not sure that's possible. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 22:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * The following are ✅ matches for each other:
 * – Luna Santin  (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * – Luna Santin  (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * – Luna Santin  (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * – Luna Santin  (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * – Luna Santin  (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Altered code-letter. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 22:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed accounts blocked. -- Kanonkas : Talk  12:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

06 July 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Pattern of creating fake articles in userspace, most of which contain false information. Cassandra 73 (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Cassandra 73 (talk)

A couple more obvious ones, although they're somewhat stale (just adding to the report mainly to get them tagged so the content of the user pages can be removed) Cassandra 73 (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Cassandra 73 (talk)
 * Blocked and tagged. TN X Man  18:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Contributions + username pattern = quack. These have all been blocked and tagged (some of which were CU confirmed in the archive). I think a sleeper check would also be a good idea. TN X Man 14:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * for a sleeper check, please, SpitfireTally-ho! 14:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Jeez, some people have way too much time. Awful ranges, I only checked the last thirty days. Here are some more: There are certainly more, and I couldn't get them all via checkuser even if I start splitting the ranges seeing that already a number of those listed above are stale. I'd recommend matching the user list against those tells to get more. None of those would be damaging if we'd just no-index user space, I add, but alas. Amalthea 17:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Bagged and tagged. TN X Man  17:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Cassandra 73
Same pattern of creating nonsense fake articles in userspace and editing each other's userpages. Cassandra 73 (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Self endorsing for CU attention. Looks like another sockfarm.  E lockid  ( Talk ) 01:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure if we should get checkuser on this? All of the hoax pages deleted, but I am too busy in real life to block & tag. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 21:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

✅ to be all the same:

For what it's worth, IPs are from a different country than the recent (Discography|History|Biography|Bio) socks, so most probably not the same user. Amalthea 14:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC) All blocked. TN X Man 15:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

02 January 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

As with previous socks, these accounts are creating hoax articles in userspace based on a real person (Lee Ryan) but most of the information is false. Several of this user's previous sock names were based on Lee Ryan (eg User:Lee Ryan History, User:Lee Ryan Discography, User:Lee Ryan Gerrard, User:Lee Ryan Gerrard Discography). January ( talk ) 19:38, 2 January 2012 (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

 * Checked per the large behavioural overlap and history of creating huge sock farms. The following are ✅:
 * WilliamH (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WilliamH (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WilliamH (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WilliamH (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

08 April 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Creating a WP:FAKEARTICLE in userspace. Previous socks have been Sugababes-related (eg User:Sugababes Discography, and others have had the (H) ending (eg User:Lee Ryan Discography (H)). January  ( talk ) 16:17, 8 April 2012 (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
The following are ✅ matches to : Though the data is, the behavior and the username quacks loudly. Elockid  ( Talk ) 22:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  02:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)