Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeneral28/Archive

Report date May 29 2009, 14:17 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

The account "Tomcat96" was created today, and has only been used to edit the articles that "Jeneral28" has been editing. The account is also "agreeing" with "Jeneral28" on talk page discussions that they started. Another block avoiding sock by Jeneral28 (Neptune123456) was blocked yesterday. Fre h  ley  14:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Fre  h  ley

What the/ a new user cannot edit page and get accused of a term I have never heard of? Wher is the Unniversal Declaration of Human Rights? America's constitution?Tomcat96 (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

blocked by. Also see [#Block_evasion_by_User:Jeneral28 this related ANI report], for the record. Amalthea 15:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions

Icestorm815 •  Talk  15:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

08 June 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Jeneral28 was indefinitely blocked on May 29, 2009. The user created at least two sockpuppet accounts to evade this block, including Tomcat96 and Neptune123456; both accounts were blocked as sockpuppets within a day or two of the indef block. The account that is the subject of this report, Foxhound66, was created on May 30, 2009, the day after the indef block was imposed on Jeneral28, on May 30, 2009.

Two IP-addresses, and, were confirmed to be sockpuppets of Jeneral28; both IP addresses are registered to the University of Birmingham. Meanwhile, two separate IP addresses have been blocked within the last week as sockpuppets of Foxhound66, and. These IP addresses are very close to the IP addresses used by Jeneral28, and both are also registered to the University of Birmingham.

Both Jeneral28 and Foxhound66 share very specific editing interests. See this, which to me highly suggests that the two accounts are related. Of note, both accounts have a tendency to edit articles relating to international political economy, Jennette McCurdy, Toto, and two specific schools located in Singapore: Raffles Girls' School (Secondary) and Singapore Chinese Girls' School. Some specific examples of shared editing interests are as follows:
 * International Political Economy
 * Jennette McCurdy and related articles
 * - So Close (Jennette McCurdy song) ; contesting of notability between this and this
 * iCarly related articles
 * Toto related articles
 * Raffles Girls' School (Secondary) (a specific school in Singapore)
 * Singapore Chinese Girls' School (another specific school in Singapore)
 * Chew Men Leong (Singapore rear admiral) (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chew_Men_Leong&action=history)
 * International development (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_development&limit=500&action=history)

Both Jeneral28 and Foxhound66 also act similarly. They both consistently blank their talk pages after other users edit it. They both attack Wikipedia and its users (for example, see:, , , ). Finally, as noted above by other users, both have a tendency to go back to their previous edits while logged in on a sock account and continue previous conversations started from their "master" account. For example, see this edit by FoxHound66, this edit by Neptune123456, this edit by Tomcat96, this edit by a confirmed IP-sock of Foxhound66, etc.

In summary, the evidence suggests that both users are 1) affiliated with the University of Birmingham, 2) are interested in Jennette McCurdy, the band Toto, international political economy, and two specific Singapore girls schools, 3) and have similar etiquette issues. Foxhound66's account was created the day after Jeneral28 was indef blocked. Circumstantial evidence seems to support that there is a connection between these two accounts. I am unsure if a checkuser would help here, given that Jeneral28 has been blocked for two years now, though an admin suggested that checkuser data related to sockpuppet users is sometimes preserved.

The evidence linking the third IP address, 78.109.182.43, to Jeneral28 are less concrete, but the IP address does share similar editing interests as Foxhound66 (international development, international political economy, British military articles, and Singapore military). Moreover, this third IP address has been going onto the talk pages of users that Foxhound66 has edited prior to being blocked (or users he has worked with using his IP address as his main account is currently blocked), and continuing conversations.
 * Specifically, for example, see these two edits:, . Here the user is continuing a conversation with a user regarding the Special Operations Task Force article, which was started by an IP already confirmed to be a sock of Foxhound66.
 * See also these edits, where the IP user is continuing interactions with a user regarding warships of the Royal Navy:, , and.
 * Finally, see the article United Nations Development Group. IP user 147.188.254.154, already confirmed as a sock of Foxhound66, heavily edited the article while Foxhound66 was blocked; after that IP was blocked, IP user 78.109.182.43 went back and did one more copy edit.

A checkuser may be useful here to see if there is a connection between this third IP address and Foxhound66. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 11:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' If Jeneral28's data is too old, would it be possible/viable to open a new SPI with Foxhound66 listed as the main sockmaster on that last 78.109 apparent sock, given the fairly strong editing similarity? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Response to TNXMan (below)
 * That would be fine, but checkuser would still be unable to offer an conclusions. Analysis of the behavioral evidence would still be necessary by the patrolling admin/clerk. TN X Man  13:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Response to Aoi (above)
 * The third IP (78.109.182.43) was traced to Birmingham as well and is provided by Ask4 Ltd. As I see it, the geo-location-connection revealed is too damning even for him to slip out of it this time. Best and out. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 15:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
The data on any named accounts is and checkuser does not generally disclose connections between IPs and named accounts. TN X Man 12:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Per behavioral evidence, mostly in the overlap of articles, I've blocked Foxhound66. As to the IPs, they haven't really been used since this case was open, so I'm going to leave them alone. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 11:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

03 July 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

was created the exact same day the previous blocked sock,, was blocked, and continued to edit the same articles. Cibwins2885 was indefinitely blocked by on 30 June. This is a procedural report, and also a request to find any new accounts this sockmaster might have created since, if possible. I've left the "checkuser" field as "no" for now, but the patrolling clerk might think it a reasonable request to sweep for sleepers. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * The results are very interesting. was created on 30 June, unsurprisingly the same day  was blocked. Edits to similar articles as Foxhound66 and his other socks, too. What strikes me the most is the set of edits by, which are a weird mix of Singaporean people, schools, UK military and... er, complaints about offensive vulva images? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Self-endorsed. Every time an account was blocked, a new one was opened almost immediately. I think it is prudent to take a look to see if a new account has been created, and perhaps if there is an underlying small IP range or other action that can stop this behavior. Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 03:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Jeneral28 is stale. The following accounts are related on a technical level: Please only block an account if there is also a behavioural match. The exception to this is Cibrules95 which I have blocked myself as the technical evidence is pretty clear that the account was created with the intent of evading an impending block. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * They were all behavioural matches in my opinion and given they are related on a technical level as well I believe they are all the same user and all are now blocked. Woody (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * All are blocked, so we can close. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

12 April 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

After a little birdie kindly pointed out the similarities between Phd8511 and long-ago blocked Jeneral28, it was obvious as daylight: the user name, the snippiness, the syntax/rhetoric of their edit summaries, and their interests. The overlap between the two accounts is convincing, and a similar overlap was found with a randomly-picked old sock, Mphil1805. I mean, an amazing overlap. Account already blocked, will run CU just in case. [nothing found, but I filed on the CU wiki] Drmies (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Tiny acorns..." -  the WOLF  child  02:59, 12 April 2016 (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, closing the case.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  15:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Account was created at 04:31 on 12 April 2016, after the previous sock,, was blocked at 03:26 the same day. The editor's user name has a similar theme, with a nod to academia in the name. The contribution history reveals lots of overlaps, with edits to articles such as International Development Association (here and here) and United Nations Development Group, and a shared interest in the military, political economy academics (e.g. this and this) and American TV series (e.g. this and this). A quack case, I think. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * A slightly strange response from Cantab1985, who also states that they are making constructive edits. While that may be true, this still appears to be block evasion, and the editor should presumably request that their original account is unblocked if they wish to resume constructive editing? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Strange?! You started this when I've no idea what you are talking about. All my edits are constructive and have been thanked by several users who also corrected spelling and formatting which I then improved upon. My history shows I've edited articles on so many different topics. Strange in my your mind.Cantab1985 (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps not strange as such, but I wondered why you were asking me who I am. That doesn't seem relevant here. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What is relevant is you not considering other factors. Still so arrogant.Cantab1985 (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you please outline the other factors, and explain whether these mean that you are not a sock, or whether you are citing them as mitigation, ? I would be very happy to be proven wrong here, but the evidence of the overlap in your editing and the timing of your account creation is difficult to ignore. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You tell me why you do this; I see no clean reason. I have created article that do not relate to any of what you talk about Mechanised Infantry Vehicle, Multi Role Vehicle-Protected, Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre and SPEAR 3 and have edited military, social, country, international affairs articles constructively, have received thanks from users like User:Dormskirk, User:Ahunt help and compliments from others like users like BilCat, Whizz40, User:samtar and User:Marchjuly. All I see from your own edits is your bragging about your academics, you aimlessly edited this and that. Finally you say "you are happy" are you really sincerely saying that?Cantab1985 (talk) 13:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I am being sincere, . I don't really understand the last part of your comment, about my contributions. Yes, I have written some articles about academics, but they are not "my academics" - they are people I have never met. Can you clarify whether you are saying that you are but have made useful contributions, or that those contributions prove that you are not Jeneral28? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And I don't understand you either. My comment is that I am neither and have you even at my contributions? Your bragging is is stating you have three degrees. I don't brag about my background or my edits and am happy to not start conflicts even though stuff like Marco Pierre White's notable personal life was rejected.Cantab1985 (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Have I even what at your contributions? Looked? Yes, I have. Please see this comparison. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Clearly you don't appreciate the value of any of my contributions. I'll revert some edits now. I have no understand why you want to block people.Cantab1985 (talk) 02:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not making a judgement about the value of your contributions. This is about the fact that you are avoiding a block by creating new accounts. If you want to appeal your block with the promise that you will abide by the rules, then you should do that rather than creating new accounts. Please see WP:OFFER. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * PS: It's not clear why you say you are going to revert some edits. If you mean your own, I would advise against that. Just let this investigation run its course. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting that you mention Marco Pierre White, . I see that both Phd8511 and you have an interest in his chauffeur. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''


 * It is worth noting that both usernames have the unusual practice of putting references in the edit summary rather than the main space of an article when editing. I haven't come across anyone else doing this. Eg, Phd8511 (,, etc) and Cantab1985 . Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk  14:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * While the timing of the creation of the account, interest in similar articles and practice of putting references in the edit summary does not look good, I don't think we can say that there is no reasonable doubt here. Perhaps we could request CheckUser intervention. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think the behavioural evidence puts this well beyond doubt. There's a shared interest in Marco Pierre White's chauffeur, Ronen Palan, Toto, United Nations Development Group, George Zambellas, etc., plus the timing, sources in edit summaries, etc. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I would support a request for CheckUser. It would be remove any doubt that may still remain, though I agree that the other evidence is very weighty. Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk 15:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've forgotten how to add a checkuser request to an already-open investigation, . Do you know? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added "checkuser" to the hat for this section. I think that's how you request it. Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk 15:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Account isn't stale anymore. Dat GuyTalkContribs 10:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's the accounts in the archives that are stale,, rather than Cantab1985, who continues to edit. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
accounts were already blocked and tagged but the status was not switched. Now closed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've declined the CU request as all the accounts in the archives are .--Bbb23 (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked on behavioral behavior: syntax/style, other quirks noted in this SPI, overwhelming overlap--I am not sure I have ever seen overlap like this. Drmies (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Adding references to the edit summary (eg, , and ); this was found to be a particular practice of this sockpuppet. With only 31 edits, this user has 9 pages in common with the most recent socks ([http://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=ACSilver&users=Cantab1985&users=Phd8511&startdate=2006%2F1%2F1&enddate=2017%2F01%2F09&ns=%2C+%2C&server=enwiki checked against Cantab1985 and Phd8511 using Editor Interaction Analyser). Most edits are to military related articles (as with previous socks)], with the notable exception of an edit to While My Guitar Gently Weeps (which was also edited by Jeneral28 ). I welcomed/challenged the user on 8 December 2016 but they simply deleted it. They have recently been warned for uncivil behaviour. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 02:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * The discussion at Talk:While My Guitar Gently Weeps was started by a previous Jeneral28 sock,, and resumed by ACSilver. Seems like a duck case to me. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Good spot! Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 00:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
The accounts in the archive are. CU declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Behavioral evidence looks good. Account seems like it's been more-or-less abandoned, but I'll block anyway. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Adding references to the edit summary (most recently, , and ); this has been noted as a particular practice of this sockpuppet. The account was created just hours after I left a message about sockpuppetry on a different sock's talk page (ACSilver); this account creation is therefore directly linked with that challenge. This account has edited more than sixty of the same articles as the most recent two socks (as seen with Editor Interaction Analyser). Its other edits are related to the British military; Jeneral28 and sock's favourite topic. As with other socks, this user has been warned for incivility. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 00:05, 13 July 2017 (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

 * Yeah, I'm convinced., closing. GABgab 01:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Very similar behavior patterns. As with previous socks, user is adding references to the edit summary (see, , for three most recent examples, all within the last few days). The Ajaxrocks account was created on July 14, only one day after the most recent SPI was filed. Note the similarities between this user name, and the most recently tagged sock -- Ajaxrocks and JessPavarocks. In addition, like almost all of the previous socks, this user also blanks their talk page after receiving messages [see and. Finally, for a user that's only been active for a month a half, there is an amazing overlap in editing interests, see for overlap with last tagged sock. Seems like a WP:DUCK to me, so I'm not requesting a CU, but if a clerk, CU, admin, or other user thinks one should be done, please feel free to overrule me (data from the last sock is not yet stale). 青い(Aoi) (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2017 (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

 * - Clearly . Please block. Sro23 (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. GABgab 14:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

This user's most previous sock, Ajaxrocks, was blocked for block evasion a few days ago. I reverted some of the user's edits for sockpuppetry, but one single edit was reverted back to the state it was as Ajaxrocks left it. In addition, the user went to the talk page of a user that Ajaxrocks previously had a content dispute with and continued the argument, only a few hours after Ajaxrocks' unblock request was denied. Looking back at the IP's previous edits, it also has hallmarks of Jeneral28's pattern of edits: snippy edits bordering on written abuse and personal attacks (see these edits for similar behavior on a previous sock:, ), and putting URLs directly in edit summaries. Articles edited are the same topic area as Jeneral28 -- British military and political articles. Finally, this IP was previously blocked for block evasion, though I cannot tell from the block log or talk page what block this IP was evading. Based on the aforementioned insult to the IP user a few hours ago (that Ajaxrocks had a content dispute with) alone, I strongly feel like this is a WP:DUCK. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 02:25, 4 September 2017 (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 agree that it looks like him. Seems like a static IP; blocked for 1 year since the previous block was 6 months. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Investigation requested by on my talk page. The master requested a merge discussion and deletion of several related articles; the socks all commented in support, and have few other edits. See below. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:10, 5 December 2020 (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 accounts are ✅:
 * All socks blocked. Given the scale of this disruption I have blocked the master for one month. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * All socks blocked. Given the scale of this disruption I have blocked the master for one month. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * All socks blocked. Given the scale of this disruption I have blocked the master for one month. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * All socks blocked. Given the scale of this disruption I have blocked the master for one month. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * All socks blocked. Given the scale of this disruption I have blocked the master for one month. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Ok, so....

The piece of evidence that got me started on this; this account on Military Wikia, named Jeneral28– akin to the blocked puppeteer Jeneral28. I found this Wikia account whilst doing research for an article I was creating a few days back, I noticed that it had had a very similar editing style and pattern to BlueD954 and so I politely inquired on his talk page, which he then removed without answering, with the edit summary "How dare a lon term blocked user lecture me." (I'm not too sure what this means). So I Initially left it there, until Thewolfchild alerted me to Jeneral28 having been blocked on Wikipedia 10 years ago, at this point I started to look a bit more into it, and evidence of sockpuppetry became clearer.

1) BlueD954's edits on Wikipedia, and those of Jeneral28 on Wikia are very much similar– often even identical in nature. E.g.
 * HMS Repulse (1916): Removing the word "consort" from the intro. Wikipedia and Wikia; the two edits happened within 1 minute of eachother.
 * The articles below are exact copy-pastes from Wikia to Wikipedia, and almost the exact same edits are made at almost the exact same time. I've included an edit as an example.
 * User:BlueD954/sandbox/Current serving senior officers in the British Army is a direct copy-paste of Current serving senior officers in the British Army on Wikia, and the same edits are made to the articles at the same time.
 * Changing a persons job role: Wikipedia and Wikia. Again these both happened with the same minute– 14:33, 20 April 2021. Please also note the similarity in edit summaries: "update fast" and "Update faster than SP" for the edit.
 * User:BlueD954/sandbox/Current serving senior officers in the Royal Marines and Current serving senior officers in the Royal Marines
 * User:BlueD954/sandbox/Current serving senior officers in the Royal Air Force and Current serving senior officers in the Royal Air Force
 * User:BlueD954/sandbox/Current serving senior officers in the Royal Navy and Current serving senior officers in the Royal Navy

2) BlueD954 edits many of the same articles that Jeneral28 and their sockpuppets did, for example:
 * British Government frontbench
 * BlueD954 – 389 edits to the page in total (the most out of any user)
 * 2 May 2021
 * 15 February 2020
 * 9 July 2018
 * Cantab1985 – 342 edits to the page in total (the second most out of any user)
 * 24 September 2016
 * 18 July 2016
 * 14 July 2016

3) Both Jeneral28 and his sockpuppets, and BlueD954 have a very distinct way of utilising talk pages. This, quite often consists of a link (in url format), with a sentence beneath, and then signed beneath that; sometimes the sentence is omitted and instead used as a section header.
 * BlueD954
 * 26 March 2021
 * 6 January 2021
 * 12 March 2019
 * 1 February 2019
 * Amandalu862
 * 23 June 2011
 * BSc600
 * 13 October 2016
 * User:Cibwins2885
 * 28 June 2011

I think you probably get the idea, BlueD945 use an identical MOS, to the sockpuppets, for writing on talk pages.

4) BlueD954 has also used sockpuppers and canvassing in the past, in order to 'gain support' for a particular discussion that affects him.
 * Socpuppers of BlueD954: Aielen85, Leahjstaples1234, and SayleD. Investigation is here.

Evidence of using sockpuppers: here, here, and more which I won't bother including.
 * Evidence of canvassing can also be found at User talk:Dormskirk/Archive 8.

5) More similarities to Jeneral28, and their sockpuppets as laid out here Sockpuppet investigations/Jeneral28/Archive
 * Regarding Jeneral28 and sockpuppets Foxhound66 and Ajaxrocks: "They both consistently blank their talk pages after other users edit it.", and "this user also blanks their talk page after receiving messages"
 * BlueD954:
 * 29 April 2021
 * 27 October 2020
 * 12 October 2019 – Wipes the comment of the Commanding Officer of a regiment, who politely corrects him.
 * 20 December 2018
 * And many, many more instances


 * Regarding Jeneral28, Foxhound66, and 116.12.147.235: "They both attack Wikipedia and its users", and "snippy edits bordering on written abuse and personal attacks" Also happens quite a bit in edit summaries
 * BlueD954:
 * 26 February 2021 – see edit summary
 * 6 January 2021
 * 17 November 2020 – see edit summary
 * 18 December 2018 – see edit summary
 * 17 November 2018
 * This conversation – User talk:BlueD954/Archive 4
 * These conversations – User talk:Nick-D and User talk:Nick-D
 * Also constantly seem to attack me in particular, for some reason:
 * 21 April 2021 – see edit summary
 * 27 April 2021 – see edit summary
 * Also circling back to the start and the Jeneral28 account on Wikia (which I believe links BlueD945to Jeneral 28) they also seem to mention me/attack me in edit summaries, even though I've never spoken to somebody named "Jeneral28":
 * 23 April 2021
 * 21 April 2021
 * 20 April 2021
 * 30 March 2021
 * 24 January 2021
 * 23 January 2021 – "Idiot SmartsPants22 is wrong.", thought that was a lovely one
 * 23 January 2021 – "Smartp22 sucks" – charming
 * Once again I have never spoken to this Jeneral28 ever, 'tis why I believe it to be BlueD945, and therefore BlueD945 is the Jeneral28 from Wikipedia in about 2009/10/11


 * Regarding Jeneral28, Cantab1985, JessPavarocks, ACSilver, and 116.12.147.235: "It is worth noting that both usernames have the unusual practice of putting references in the edit summary rather than the main space of an article when editing", "Adding references to the edit summary", "Adding references to the edit summary", "user is adding references to the edit summary", and "putting URLs directly in edit summaries"
 * BlueD954: Note Jeneral28 at Wikia also seems to do this.
 * 3 February 2021
 * 1 December 2020
 * 17 November 2020
 * 13 November 2020
 * 28 October 2020

6) BlueD954 and Jeneral28;s sockpuppets use many of the same box templates (can't for the life of me remember their name) on their User page.
 * See this version for what I am talking about.
 * They both use
 * Wikiproject International Development
 * Wikiproject International Relations
 * United Nations related templates
 * Economics related templates

To sum up BlueD954 has many, many of the same editing styles and habits as Jeneral28 and their numerous sockpuppet accounts. Also BlueD954 seems to be the same person as Jeneral28 on Military Wikia, who has the same name as Jeneral28 on Wikipedia, leading me to believe that they are linked. I know this was a lot of information, so thanks for reading I guess. SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 14:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''


 * FYI, I'm fairly certain that before he started using the BlueD954 account, he was editing as . I believe they're linked. - wolf  10:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * With regards to that account Sammartinlai is the same account as BlueD954, as Sammartinlai was the old username for the account that was renamed to BlueD954. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 15:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * So as another sock of Jeneral28, what happens to it now? I only ask because I don't know all the SPI procedures. Thanks - wolf  21:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , no account with that username now exists as the account was renamed and as such that username is not attached to any account (so I can't block it). If you go to Special:Contributions/Sammartinlai it says "Sammartinlai" is not registered on this wiki. With regards to tagging, there is little need to add a tag to that userpage as now no account exists for that username and they haven't used that username for over 2 years. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 21:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. I recalled the name after seeing it in an older edit, (but not striked out). Thanks for the replies. - wolf  21:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Certainly suspicious. If this account is blocked as a sock of Jeneral28, Sockpuppet investigations/BlueD954 will need merging here. As the CU for this case is almost certainly stale, the CU at that case certainly would have not been able to see any of the accounts in the archive here through the CU tool. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 21:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing enough evidence to show without really any doubt that the wikia user Jeneral28 and BlueD954 are the same person. This with comparing enwiki evidence shows to me that this account is ducky enough for a block. . Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 21:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've merged Sockpuppet investigations/BlueD954 to here. Dreamy Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 22:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've blocked BlueD954 as mentioned above. I've also retagged BlueD954's confirmed socks as suspected to Jeneral28. I'll be applying G5 where applicable. I think we are done here. Closing. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 22:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Edits + email sent to me with evidence Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 11:56, 7 May 2021 (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
Pro forma. Applied range blocks for 2 weeks. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 11:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Condo951795

1) The sockpuppeteer in question, Jeneral28's last account to be banned (User:BlueD954) was banned on the 2 May 2021, and this new account became regularly active on the 4 May 2021.

2) This account edits many of the same articles that Jeneral28 and his sockpuppets did, for example: (I have included a small number of example edits on each article)
 * British Government frontbench (Jeneral28's confirmed sockpuppets BlueD954 and Cantab1985 have the 4th and 6th most edits on the page respectively, whilst this user is not far behind in 9th. (see )
 * – 11 September 2021
 * – 4 November 2021
 * – 19 December 2021


 * River Cottage Forever (BlueD954 heavily edited this article)
 * – 31 October 2021
 * – 14 November 2021
 * – 5 February 2022


 * Escape to River Cottage (BlueD954 also heavily edited this article)
 * – 31 October 2021
 * – 12 November 2021
 * – 13 February 2022


 * The Naked Chef (Once more BlueD954 heavily edited this article)
 * – 7 November 2021
 * – 1 December 2021


 * Beyond River Cottage (Again heavily edited by BlueD954)
 * – 22 October 2021
 * – 3 November 2021


 * And others

3) This users MoS is consistent with those of Jeneral28 and his sockpuppets. As noted in previous investigations:


 * Regarding Jeneral28, Cantab1985, JessPavarocks, ACSilver, and 116.12.147.235: "It is worth noting that both usernames have the unusual practice of putting references in the edit summary rather than the main space of an article when editing", "Adding references to the edit summary", "Adding references to the edit summary", "user is adding references to the edit summary", and "putting URLs directly in edit summaries".
 * – 6 May 2021
 * – 11 September 2021
 * – 24 November 2021
 * – 8 February 2022


 * As I noted in my previous investigation into BlueD954 here, I noticed that Jeneral28 and his sockpuppets have a very distinct manner of writing on talk pages, which usually consists of a link, followed by a line of text on the next line, and signed on the next line again.
 * – 13 June 2021
 * – 25 August 2021
 * – 10 September 2021
 * – 11 September 2021
 * – 11 September 2021
 * – 15 September 2021


 * As noted about another one of Jeneral28's sockpuppet's Foxhound66, "snippy edits bordering on written abuse and personal attacks"
 * – 29 August 2021

HDev411

1) Once more the account became active on 4 May 2021, just after BlueD954 was blocked from editing.

2) Editing these two niche articles around the same time as Condo951795:
 * Escape to River Cottage (very small, niche article)
 * – 23 October 2021
 * National Security Council (United Kingdom)
 * – 7 June 2021 (used the acronym DFID SoS, the same that Condo951795 used in this edit.

3) Again the unusual practice of links in the edit summary, instead of the written prose:
 * – 4 May 2021
 * – 4 May 2021

4) The mix of military, food, and intelligence related edits match that of the previous sockpuppets. SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 17:14, 22 February 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

 * - -- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The extensive editing overlap is enough for me to call both Condo and HDev as suspected to BlueD954, and there's enough bits and pieces of CU data in the logs and notes for me to upgrade Condo to proven. I can't get that all the way back to Jeneral, but I'll dual-tag as suspected. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)