Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jennifer Shame/Archive

23 April 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

All accounts are (very) recently created and exclusively target the David Bawden page. Main account, Popemichael, was suddenly reactivated after being dormant for 3 years. Requesting Checkuser to make sure there are no sleeper accounts lying about. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 20:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

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

I reactivated my account to prevent the manipulation of the page about me, David Bawden. I did not realize it has been three years. It is my iopinion a group of people is attackign my Wikipedia page and they have made some substantial alterations to the truth and posted ridiculous lies. This gruop has also caused probelms for me elsewhere, including recently on Facebook. I have no other login. I did make several changes to repair my page before logging in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popemichael (talk • contribs) 21:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that the only logged in edit is indeed a revert from the other users that suddenly seemed to appear at this page, so i guess that is indeed a plausible explanation. For now the page is semi protected which means it cannot be vandalized as of current by any new accounts. Once a checkuser verifies what is happening this should be just a matter of cleaning up the rubble. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 21:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I am accused of being a sockpuppet. I plead my innocence. To clarify; I do research on Catholic and Anglican cults and I conducted interviews with some people. My real name is Jennifer Shaw and I am originally from Salt Lake City. I am a LDS so I have no affiliation with either churches. One of the people who I interviewed (an American citizen) told me that David Bawden frequently makes use of such tactics i.e. pretends to be a victim, to attract attention to his group. This seems to be the case here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennifer Shame (talk • contribs) 07:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Popemichael appears ❌ to the other accounts. The following are ✅ as socks:

I would name Jennifer Shame as the sock-master. (Tnxman was checking at the same time, so I think he will weigh in here soon.) AGK  [•] 13:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Concur with the above. The one oddity I noticed was Mumbai's edit regarding Jennifer Shame. The two accounts are technically indistinguishable, so I don't know what they're playing at there. TN X Man  13:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

26 April 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

George Ahoy Today, PepponeDon and this anon IP both seem to be !voting on the same Afd at Articles for deletion/David Bawden and seem to be one in the same based upon these diffs: George Ahoy Today's !vote at  followed shortly after by  and this. PepponeDon's similar !vote is here. Likely there may be a relation with previous socks (detailed here Sockpuppet_investigations/Popemichael/Archive that have shown interest in the same article as well. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:02, 26 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
I'm confused. George Ahoy Today wants to keep the article and PepponeDon wants to delete it. That would seem to argue that they are different accounts. (FYI- Sockpuppet investigations/Popemichael/Archive dealt with the same article. Not saying the accounts are related, but something of which to be aware.) TN X Man  14:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, clarification - George Ahoy and the anon IP seem to be the same, and PepponeDon seems to be part of the "negative" sock. But there were some issues with that previous case where it appears members of the same sock were presenting as opposed to each other as you noted here .  It seems something odd is definitely going on - not clear if it is one or two socks.  It may be one that is playing games just to get publicity overall.  ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ the following are the same:


 * TN X Man 19:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * TN X Man 19:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * TN X Man 19:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * TN X Man 19:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

28 April 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Another new account has appeared, which seems likely per WP:DUCK to be part of this sock with edits such as this:  ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:57, 28 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

 * This is an ongoing problem, so I ran a checkuser to do some range blocks; . Whilst I was there, it was clear based the latest account is a sock or meat-puppet of the original batch, so I've blocked and tagged that too.  AGK  [•] 23:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

13 May 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

(TSBColorado) Appears to be continuation of similar patterned SPA accounts with an interest in a single article David Bawden, which have expressed views in both directions. This account's sole edit made mention of the sock puppet case, which appears rather odd for a new editor to do. Diff:. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

(115.249.115.244) Appears to be part of the same sock of SPA and anon IP accounts with a focus on David Bawden article. This anonIP continually has added original research to the article, after numerous warnings, and most recently has outed what appears to also be part of the sock/meat with this edit (which has been blanked as courtesy):. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' Huh! I just reverted fictitious things about David Bawden to the last approved edited version. So, one can't do even this cause it happens to be my first post? I alerted you that there might be a sockpuppet around and you thought I meant myself?!? I won't post anything else and leave it to all of you know-it-alls to stop the one who's vandalising the article. (TSBColorado (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TSBColorado (talk • contribs) 06:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

And please don't put me in the same league with (ab)user 115.249.115.244. I don't use slanderous and threatening language like he/she/it does! (TSBColorado (talk) 06:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC))

Can a decent editor kindly ban (ab)user 115.249.115.244 ? He's acting like a vandal and I don't have precious time to lose correcting persisent fantasies! (TSBColorado (talk) 11:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC))

The page in question is about me, David Bawden, known in religion as Pope Michael. I personally know TSBColorado, who has been maliciously attacking me on the internet for five years. Please ban her permanently. She may be assisted by another person, who joined her in 2008 and may attempt to alter the page about me. (Popemichael —Preceding undated comment added 17:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC).

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
There is no doubt that Jennifer Shame and TSBColorado are both disruptive single purpose accounts pushing their own point of view in the same topic. However, whether they are the same person, or two different people with similar bees in their bonnets is not clear. I have blocked TSBColorado for a short while, but if it is a sockpuppet account then the block should be extended to indefinite. I should be grateful for a checkuser to help resolve this question. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * - There is definitely something going on here. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No comment on the IP, but it seems that the named account is a match to .  TN X Man  13:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * - Can I get a second look at now that he has edited this SPI and used a similiar signature style to the user, and per the grounds for the previous check. I'm asking for a look to see if we magically line up with the others IP(s), --  DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  03:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but ❌. --MuZemike 04:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged per that then. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  04:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)