Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jcncnc/Archive

Evidence submitted by The Four Deuces
Jcncnc is a new account whose only edits to articles have been to the John Birch Society, mostly to remove the term "radical right" from the lead. Their edit summaries show some knowedge of policy:
 * ...This does not exhibit a neutral or unbiased point of view....
 * ...All articles be written from a neutral point of view, and not introduce bias or give undue weight to viewpoints
 * Bias policy is being violated

After I placed a 3RR warning on their talk page at 23:23, the IP reinstated Jcncnc's edit at 23:46 When reverted they subsequently reinstated the edit.

The fact that Jcncnc appears to be an experienced editor and the new edits followed their edits closely, as well as both continuing to revert is suspicious.

TFD (talk) 00:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I have added another possible, Mustang63. The fact that sll these accounts end in numbers is reason to suspect that they are all related. TFD (talk) 06:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims. I'm accused of sock puppetry because I appear knowledgeable! I've used Wikipedia for years (to look things up). So I have some idea of how Wikipedia works. It doesn't take a lot to figure out you can click the "edit" button to edit an article. And it doesn't take much work to sign up for an account and spend a few minutes reading Wikipedia's guidelines and understanding that a neutral and unbiased tone in all articles is essential to the integrity and credibility of Wikipedia. And it doesn't take a genius to know that the term "radical right-wing" or "radical left-wing" are totally unprovable, yet incendiary terms that certainly do not put across a neutral tone. The bias here is palpable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcncnc (talk • contribs) 02:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
I've added Gentile72, Robert18966, Kory207, Marioa69, and Paulherrick as others with similar edit patterns. —  Jeff G. ツ  23:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * - --  DQ  (t)  (e)  01:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * - Most of these do look like duck blocks (after seeing them remove the same thing multiple times), but I have a feeling there are more or we may need some technical evidence to back this up. Paulherrick & Marioa69 could turn up empty because of few edits/they were 2 months back. But this this, I think it's a good idea to check and see if anymore are laying around waiting to do this. -- DQ  (t)  (e)  01:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

❌ –MuZemike 01:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Would it appear that none of the above are related to each other in geolocation or otherwise? NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 22:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There was an article about WP's use of the term "radical right" on the internet and this may have encouraged several unrelated new accounts to make the same edit. Semi-protection seems to have stopped the problem.  TFD (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * - Per NativeForeigner, tried to get a CU to comment on this, but no one is around. Only endorsing for NF's comment. -- DQ  (t)  (e)  02:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Endorse relist :P NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 06:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * - While I can understand where you are coming from, another check is simply not necessary. When results come back as unrelated that means that the useragents are not the same and that the accounts do not geolocate near one another, otherwise the results would be something more along the lines of possible or likely. At this point running another check on a list of accounts who are already confirmed to be unrelated would be a poor course of action, and would only result in violating the users privacy more than is needed. This case is will have to rest on behavioral evidence if you are convinced that they are in fact socks. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 06:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Given the CU results, I don't think any action needs to be taken at this moment. T. Canens (talk) 05:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)