Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jforsayeth/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

was recently reported at WP:ANI for an obvious conflict of interest in relation to Jasper Rine. Almost as as it was filed and Jforsayseth was notified of the report at User talk:Jforsayeth, an IP address, who had no edits to their address, showed up with an attitude and began defending the user aggressively. Despite the clear evidence against Jforsayeth and the lack of comments on the thread at the time, you can see the obvious contempt in the IP's comment:


 * "What is clear is that the Jforsayeth account made its first edit to the Vine article on the 22nd of January 2010, and its last edit to that article 6 days later. Nothing else is 'clear' other than the fact that you chose to violate WP:BLP policy, after taking it upon yourself to act as judge and jury on an account which has only ever made 17 edits, none of which seem in any way to have been to the detriment of Wikipedia."

For one, this is a clear scewing of information, seeing as 12 out of 17 of the edits that the account made was to improve the personal image of Jasper Rine. After successfully doing that, they stopped editing almost entirely and have only made a few stray edits sporadically over the years, at topics seemingly related to Rine's field of study. The part about "you chose to violate WP:BLP policy" is something he repeated from another editor on that thread. "after taking it upon yourself to act as judge and jury" shows an strange amount of personal contempt, from an IP editor with no previous edits that supposedly isn't connected to Jforsayeth. Me reverting edits interpreted as WP:COI violations and reporting it to WP:ANI (as is expected) is acting as "judge and jury"? And finally, the "none of which seem in any way to have been to the detriment of Wikipedia" defense shows an obvious lack of knowledge as to how Wikipedia works. The user is basically saying "Let them edit their own Wikipedia page, they're not hurting anything!"

Since this first comment, the IP user has continued to be inexplicably emotional and most of their edits are just them selectively parroting what other users say. After going to sleep overnight and waking up, I checked the thread and saw that it blew up. So I replied with this. And here's where it starts to get interesting...

A couple of hours after I posted this (reasonable enough) response and no else replied to it, 86.134.75.242 came back with this rude response. Within minutes, another IP address showed up and added to his statement here. Like 86.134.75.242, this user has no edits to their IP address that aren't in some way related to that ANI report. It was immediately reverted by on sock puppet grounds.

After this, I replied back to 86.134.75.242 with this statement informing them that an WP:SPI was on the way. Their response? This. You'll notice that the first thing they do is repeat the same "static IP" excuse that showed up specifically to throw out. The second thing they did was go into the WP:COI and fish for anything to use against me. Basically, they cherry picked one section of suggested ways to deal with suspected COIs and tried to "spin" it as me being out of line for reporting it to WP:ANI instead of WP:COIN. Yeah, it's really flimsy.

Anyway, I dropped this reply informing them that I expect them to stop WP:BLUDGEONing and attempting to WP:GAME the discussion, and I reminded them that an SPI was on the way. I also told him that the best thing he could do is stop trying so hard to influence the discussion and let the chips fall, since he already made his position abundantly clear. I then hatted off the disruptive exchange. Predictably, 86.134.75.242 once again overreacts and begins demanding my head on a silver platter to administrators.

At this point, intervenes. Although I have had differences with this administrator before over WP:INVOLVED concerns, his response here was actually quite reasonable. He told 86.134.75.242 to stop bludgeoning and tells me to let administrators handle the hatting. 86.134.75.242, having to have the last word, replied again anyway with more allegations.

Connection to
This is the reason why I had trouble deciding whether to open a new WP:SPI here or report this to Sockpuppet_investigations/Barts1a. At first, I wholly assumed that 86.134.75.242 was just a sock or meat puppet of. However, as the situation has unfolded, I'm beginning to suspect that he might actually be another sock of. For those unaware, Twitbookspacetube was a WP:ANI troll and sockpuppet of that operated under the false pretense of a WP:CLEANSTART account. His whole shtick was to show up at WP:ANI threads and fan the flames at specific users while WP:GAMEing various policies and earning browny points with administrators. After months of getting away with this, he eventually did this with the wrong users (along with other dishonest behaviours), it was discovered he was lying about not having ongoing sanctions, and he has been completely banned from editing Wikipedia.

Back in early 2017, I was one of his targets and I warned everyone about him months before he was actually caught (though no one believed me at the time, because he kept WP:FACTIONing and canvassing administrators). The reason I have these suspicions is because of massive similarities between 86.134.75.242 and Twitbookspacetube's behaviour at ANI. All you have to do is compare their behaviour at both the current ANI report and the rampid dishonesty that took place at the 2017 dispute. At first, I did not suspect 86.134.75.242 of having any connection to Twitbookspacetube. It wasn't until I told him to cease bludgeoning and that his behaviour was beginning to resemble that of a previous troll named Twitbookspacetube, and then saw how he reacted that I began to suspect that something is up. It was at that point that he began began demanding unfounded sanctions and he claimed that I accused him of actually being Twitbookspacetube (which I actually didn't). After seeing him to do this, make the same types of claims that Twitbook did, and seeing him become obsessed with getting the last word in, I'm convinced that there might be a connection there if he isn't connected to (both of which are pretty likely).
 * Both Twitbookspacetube and 86.134.75.242 have similar manners of speech.
 * Much like 86.134.75.242, Twitbookspacetube showed up at the 2017 ANI thread out-of-nowhere, immediately started gunning hard for me for seemingly no reason. He would spam any accusation he could parrot from another user (rather than making his own conclusions), and if anyone linked to a Wikipedia guideline, he would fish through those guidelines to find anything he could to twist against me or mischaracterise my statements. Pretty soon into the discussion, he began making extreme sanction proposals throughout the entire thread out of nowhere, and basically doing everything that 86.134.75.242 is doing right now (,, , , / here, , , ).

In conclusion
and are suspected of being sock puppets or meat puppets of. 86.134.75.242 clearly has a vested interest in the ANI dispute, and is equally suspected of being a sock puppet of. In the event of a checkuser, I would highly recommend checking 86.134.75.242 against both, and 's (aka aka ) accounts. When he was most recently banned, Twitbookspacetube did promise revenge against the community.  Dark Knight  2149  03:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

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


 * Seen this at ANI... so i am a sock for trying to explain that having 0 contributions as an editor with a variable IP adress means little to nothing in regards to how long one has been on Wikipedia? After that i asked about the removal, got reverted and just went on with my normal activity after making 2 small comments to my talk to vent my frustration (but you lot know how to read contribs obviously, so can see that for yourself). Now granted, i probably should not have posted on ANI, just because the whole place is a mess and i really am totally uninvolved with everything that was talked about there. I should have cut out the smartarsery as well, no doubt, just as the comment on the length of the thread. In other words, i should not have commented because none of it was my business. But otherwise... ah well, checkuser me please and you will see nothing but some other contributions from this IP range. I made some edits here and here mostly in the last few days. To some other things as well but that was it mostly(i only edit very sporadically because IP editors get treated like filth mostly and i usually need a break from that after a short while). On the IWD article my former IP, different ISP and system(moved since then and bought new desktop) can be found as well several months back, around may or so. But geolocation should point to same area, moved from one end of town to the other. I find this almost to be a joke to be honest, no offense to DarkKnight here who of course has every right to start this process. Anyway, feel free to ask me any questions if need be, but keep in mind that pings don't work for IP editors. And just to make clear, i never had an account, ever. Have a good day everyone. 2003:D6:2729:FF8D:19DA:2C8:FA93:649C (talk) 04:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous. DarkNight has presented no evidence whatsoever linking me to Jforsayeth, or to any other account. Because none exists. I am not Jforsayeth. I am not Jasper Rine. Nor am I Twitbookspacetube, or Barts1a, or anyone else named in this scattergun 'investigation'. I am a Wikipedia contributor of long standing (longer than DN apparently), familiar with policy (unlike DN, as is readily apparent in the WP:ANI discussion), and more than a little unhappy with the way some contributors who surely ought to know better will use WP:COI accusations as a bludgeon, and an excuse to attack individuals who have the misfortune to be featured in Wikipedia 'biographies' used as dumping-grounds for badly-sourced trash and trivia. So, yes, I commented at WP:ANI. Which I am as entitled to do as anyone else. And like multiple other contributors in that thread, I suggested that DarkNight's addition of WP:BLP-violating material was of more concern than alleged COI editing nine years ago. Editing which incidentally, even if it were done by the subject of the article would almost all have been fully in accord with both WP:BLP policy and WP:COI guidelines at the time. Rather than address the substantive issues (WP:BLP policy, and what WP:COI actually says, rather than DN's misinterpretations of it) DN has chosen to throw out wild accusations, and to demonstrate nothing but bad faith - including attempts to stifle legitimate discussion on WP:ANI. I suggest this 'investigation' be closed forthwith as the waste of everyone's time it clearly is. 86.134.75.242 (talk) 06:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * This uncivil attitude you've had since you started editing is doing you no favours, so I suggest you drop it. Neither is the persistent bludgeoning. Your short fuse and makes it sound more like you are  (not less).
 * Can you provide any examples of these other contributors or "dumping grounds"? If you have been editing for so long, what are your other IP addresses? Your only edits on this address have been on this dispute, and you are very angry for someone who isn't Jforsayeth.
 * And no, if the subject of the article has BLP concerns that isn't direct vandalism, they have to open a discussion about it to let editors know. The only BLP concern (that you parroted from other users) is the restoration of the content, which is being dealt with without your disruption and bludgeoning. Jforsayeth was in the wrong for editing the page himself. Evidently, you are not as familiar with our policies as you claim.
 * Likewise, sock puppetry is a blockable offense... If you weren't already aware. What this is is retaliation, and you are doing a poor job of hiding it. At this point, everyone is aware of your (angrily stated) position and the only thing stopping you from being blocked is the lack of a checkuser. I would strongly suggest making the best of your situation, let the chips fall where they will at that discussion, and don't edit any articles related to Jasper Rine.  Dark Knight  2149  06:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * 'Uncivil attitude'? 'Angry'? I suggest you take a look at yourself in a mirror. After confirming that as of 2010, WP:COI clearly and unequivocally stated that "Deleting content that violates Wikipedia's biography of living persons policy" was permitted by a contributor that might otherwise have a COI. That was the guideline then. The guideline hasn't changed a great deal since. And in any case, as has been pointed out to you on multiple occasions, WP:BLP policy (which trumps any guideline) states that such material should be "removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". This is policy. Restoring badly-sourced attacks and trivia isn't. 86.134.75.242 (talk) 06:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I have been rather patient with you. And let's say you are correct about BLP, and so far, that's the only thing you have been correct about. That doesn't suddenly make your behaviour any less disruptive. Drop. The. Stick. At this point, everyone there knows what your position is. If you continue to bludgeon the discussion and cast aspersions, I'm requesting that you receive a block until the matter is closed.  Dark Knight  2149  07:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This so-called sockpuppet investigation is self-evidently nothing but bludgeoning and aspersions. You have presented nothing in the way of evidence to support any of it. If you want to see sticks dropped, I suggest you start by letting go yourself. And an apology for misrepresenting WP:BLP policy (which you seem at last to have admitted to) wouldn't be a bad idea. I suggest you post it on WP:ANI. 86.134.75.242 (talk) 07:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I assume you are referring to the comment from, who made an (incorrect) first impression based on your dishonesty and likely didn't even read the SPI. One checkuser clerk has already affirmed the suspiciousness of your behaviour, as can anyone who reads this thread. You are running out of chances, and I am running of patience. Cease and desist now, or I am filing an WP:ARBCOM report against you. The only thing saving you from a block at this point is the impossibility of a checkuser. Keep it up, and that will likely change.  Dark Knight  2149  07:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As I have already stated on your talk page (in a comment you promptly deleted) I would have no issue with this going to ArbCom. The more eyes on your paranoid and toxic behaviour the better, as far as I'm concerned. 86.134.75.242 (talk) 07:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Can you properly link the edit where they ever claimed to the same person for me please? Because 2003:d6:2729:ff8d:19da:2c8:fa93:649c has denied being the same user above and in his edit history. 86.134.75.242 has also fervently denied being Jasper Rine, despite clear evidence to the contrary.  Dark Knight  2149  07:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * WilyD, I can't speak for other IPs (there was at least one other involved in that discussion), but I certainly haven't 'confirmed' being anyone linked to the Vine article, or to anything else of relevance. I think you must have misread something. 86.134.75.242 (talk) 07:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I may have somewhat misread the comment about dynamic IPs.

Responses to ST47

 * That's unfortunate, because 86.134.75.242's suspicious activity in relation to Jforsayeth and Twitbookspacetube was the primary reason this SPI was filed. While I think there is enough evidence against 2003:D6:2729:FF8D:19DA:2C8:FA93:649C for a checkuser, the evidence against him (replying mere minutes after 86.134.75.242, coming out of nowhere, no prior edit history, being reverted as a sock by GoodDay, ETC) could conceivably be a coincidence, even if it's unlikely.
 * The same cannot be said of 86.134.75.242, who has a clear vested interest in the matter.  Dark Knight  2149  04:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Checkuser reveals the IP addresses that an account is using. Checkusering two IP addresses will not give any information regarding whether they are operated by the same person. ST47 (talk) 04:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clearing that up. Do you have any advice on how I should proceed?  Dark Knight  2149  04:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally, if the concern is User:Jforsayeth, I would wait until there is current evidence of whatever wrongdoing you suspect. There's little point in wasting time and energy about an account that is long inactive. ST47 (talk) 05:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 86.134.75.242 was suspected of being Jforsayeth or Twitbookspacetube (based on their behaviour and reactions at the ANI thread). It's hard to say which one without a checkuser, which seems to be impossible. 2003:D6:2729:FF8D:19DA:2C8:FA93:649C was only suspected of being connected to Jforsayeth and/or 86.134.75.242, albeit to a much lesser extent than 86.134.75.242 is suspected.  Dark Knight  2149  05:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
There's no sockpuppeting, just someone who'd be wiser to register an account (I'm not sure if they're claimed to be Jforsayeth or not, but the account isn't involved, so it's neither here nor there.) Wily D 07:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC) I may have somewhat misread that comment. Wily D 07:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The IP users do seem to be oddly interested in the ANI matter, but User:Jforsayeth has not edited since 2016. So please be advised that CheckUser will not publicly connect accounts with IPs, and also that there is no data available for Jforsayeth anyway since the account is (data is deleted after 3 months). If the IPs are one user representing themselves as two in projectspace, that's possibly a violation of WP:BADSOCK, but I don't see any relation to User:Jforsayeth being a) relevant or b) provable. ST47 (talk) 04:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And for the avoidance of doubt, none of the Twitbookspacetube accounts still have checkuser data available either. ST47 (talk) 04:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * This is not the place to re-litigate the case at ANI. There is nothing here for checkuser attention, there is no credible allegation of WP:BADSOCK, and this honestly looks a lot like fishing. Go back to Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents where there is already a discussion about the conduct issues that you're raising, this isn't the place to relitigate an ANI thread that hasn't even ended yet. I'm closing this SPI. ST47 (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)