Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jimmy McDaniels/Archive

Evidence submitted by Yworo
User:Jimmy McDaniels recently was restricted by a topic ban from editing Jason Leopold and Truthout. (See this RfC and this AN/I archive.) Today, after COI and NPOV tags were removed from the article, they were restored by IP 75.56.203.166, which is in the IP range known to be used by Jimmy McDaniels (see RfC). Shortly after notification of the topic ban was posted to the IPs talk page, a shiny new user claiming to be from Canada is posting to the article talk page. The user account was created 7 minutes after the revert by the IP. Leopold is known for using multiple sockpuppets on online forums (see the RfC). I think we'd better get a checkuser and nip this in the bud, but if WP:DUCK is enough, that's fine with me too. Yworo (talk) 03:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Despite being created 7 minutes after the IP address reverted the removal of templates from the article, the new user waited another hour and a half, until it was clear there was a consensus to remove the templates, before posting on the talk page. Yworo (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

In addition, the new user states I would like to begin as well by helping to build a torture section. Note the following:


 * From on 23 November 2009: Leopold has done an enormous amount of work on the issue of torture and deserves credit and attention for that work.
 * From on 5 May 2010: There is not a single entry on the work Mr. Leopold has done since then, particularly on the issue of torture, for which he has received accolades and awards, to balance this entry out. I am Mr. Leopold's lawyer...
 * From on 29 July 2010: Leopold's work on the Bush administration's torture program has been ...
 * From User:Jimmy McDaniels on 11 August 2010: I do think a section on torture...
 * From on 19 August 2010: I also believe creating a section on torture and ... are warranted since I found media people discussing Leopold's coverage

Having found all these, there's really no longer any need for a checkuser. Yworo (talk) 06:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

We are getting closer and closer to proving this is actually Jason. The IP address used by "William Borgenicht" is which is on BlackBerry.net. Leopold uses a BlackBerry as evidenced by his use of ÜberTwitter on Twitter. ÜberTwitter is a BlackBerry-only app. Yworo (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It is my understanding tha blackberry is used by tens of millions of people in the United States and millions in Canada too. I also see that there have been many accusations by this person that Jason Leopold is actually everyone who has come here to voice an opinion. That's interesting. I ask you, Wikipedia, what have I done wrong? I made a proposal. I have not made any contribution or editing to this or any other entry. I do not see why it's improper, as has been implied, to use a mobile device. Many people use their iPhones and now that the Droid is becoming popular I am sure that will be used too. Would it be better if I provided the administrators with my telephone number and address? I am not attempting to be cute. I am happy to prove that I am William Borgenicht. —Preceding unsigned comment added by William Borgenicht (talk • contribs) 02:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "I made a proposal. I have not made any contribution or editing to this or any other entry." Yea, thats the thing, when someone comes from nowhere and hasent done anything at all in wikipedia except say the same thing as a guy who just got banned, well, lets just say that we arent stupid. Are we really to believe that in all of wikipedia, you have taken an interest in the *tags* on this particular article? This coming right after the banned editor also wanted to re-add the very same tags? Come on, give us a little credit here, you arent the first person in the world who thought he could get his way by making a new account and pretending to be a brand new person. Bonewah (talk) 04:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It's also funny that for someone claiming to run an online database of torture cases, your name doesn't get any hits in Canada. In fact, it's an extremely uncommon name, with the most recent online mentions being in archived documents dated 1946 and 1965 in the US. Yworo (talk) 16:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed it is an uncommon name. However, I along with my brother, Louis, have worked tirelessly these last few years in bringing attention to the issue of healthcare professionals involved in torture. I welcome you to call or email Louis, a physician, and a member of the faculty at U. of Utah to inquire about me and our work. William Borgenicht (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Not the way we do things here. Obviously, you're not going to ask us to call somebody you haven't already prepared. Yworo (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Louis is a man of the utmost integrity. For you to suggest that I would "prepare" him on such a minor event such as the one I somehow have found myself in the middle of is ridiculous. In addition, to his work at the university, Louis is a physician and an author. Is this how Wikipedia treats all members of its community? If so, I have no interest in participating. William Borgenicht (talk) 03:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

In the interim, I intend to begin contributing until I am told otherwise. William Borgenicht (talk) 03:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it's only how we treat obvious sockpuppets of users who have been recently topic-banned and who create new accounts pretending to be somebody else. The end result of which will likely be an indefinite block for all involved accounts and a possible community ban. Yworo (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Why do you claim I am a sockpuppet? Because of the time in which I decided to voice an opinion? This seems somewhat paranoid. Well, I provided my information and I am available to to provide the evidence necessary to those in charge of this investigation. I am creating a biography for a detainee who deserves an entry here. William Borgenicht (talk) 02:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, because your account was created 7 minutes after a long-running abusive user (the history of which you can read here) reverted the removal of the tags on the article, and in your first edit you discuss the removal of the very same tags. Tags are something that new users typically aren't familiar enough with to discuss in a policy context. It's also unusual that you didn't make that first edit immediately upon creating your account, that you waited 2.5 hours for the tags to be removed again before making your comment. If you aren't the same user who has been topic banned, it's clear that you were contacted by that user and asked to get involved with the article. We don't allow that sort of proxying on behalf on an abusive editor either. Yworo (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a mistake. In my comments I said "I see there is a consensus, however, I choose to voice my feelings that this entry indeed lacks neutrality." I did not edit. I was voting because there was a comment that sounded like someone was seeking opinions. I have not been contacted by anyone. I still do not understand this. I would just like to offer my input.74.82.64.16 (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry that my presence is being seen as disruptive. That was not the intent I had when I signed up. William Borgenicht (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Hello. I have been directed here. I have left a comment on the discussion thread of Jason Leopold. I do not understand why this happened. But to the accuser I can assure you I am no sockpuppet. I invite the administrators of Wikipedia to check my credentials. Please do check my IP address as well and you will see I live in Canada. I am a human rights advocate. I merely suggested adding material to Mr. Leopold's biography about torture. Being that much of the biography peruses nearly a decade old news file I suggested including the work on torture, which I have followed. I also invite the administrators of Wikipedia to see the Wikirage website. This is where the biography debate has received much attention. Am I wrong for making this suggestion? I would like to make additions to this biography and expand the Abu Zubaydah biography here on Wikipedia too. I do believe the high value detainees deserve a separate biography also. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by William Borgenicht (talk • contribs) 04:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia, I ask you to check my information. Thank you. I do not believe this is fair. I made a proposal. I am certainly not alone in my feelings about torture nor the work Mr. Leopold has done in this area. Most human rights advocates will agree. As you will see, Wikipedia, I asked this question on the discussion page. Well, maybe another person can add the information on the torture. Why is it wrong to include material about this important subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.82.68.16 (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Using your BlackBerry while traveling, eh, Jimmy? Hope you don't sprain your thumbs. Yworo (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
Quack! "Since I have collected torture stories and maintain a torture database, I believe I can add a section that would let people know about the fine work Mr Leopold has conducted in this area..." In the first edit ever, "May I vote for keeping the neutrality tag and expansion tags in place?". Either a sock or a meat puppet for sure. William Borgenicht, you came here through Wikirage, huh? I see no terribly recent discussions of Jason Leopold there. Unless I'm missing something, this is just "ducky". Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 07:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That happens to be four years old and a search of various websites shows numerous developments since then that would be noteworthy here. --76.246.156.86, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jason_Leopold&diff=381814219&oldid=381804155 I choose to voice my feelings that this entry indeed lacks neutrality. Much of it rlies upon very old news, nearly a decade in some instances.] --William Borgenicht. Hmm two different people think wikipedia has no use for information that is 'old'? I doubt that. Bonewah (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
I'm going to mark this for close. Jimmy and the IP have not edited in weeks. William has not edited since the beginning of this month. Further disruption can certainly be reported, but I don't think there is any action to be taken here. TN X Man 15:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

16 August 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

was a single-purpose account clearly connected with IPs in the 75.56.194.x to 75.56.207.x IP address range. For details, see Requests for comment/Jimmy McDaniels, previous SPI reports, and this topic ban discussion. He also primarily edited the articles and, repeatedly attempting to "improve" them by either removing cited negative material, or adding inadequately cited positive or "new" material, frequently sourced directly to Jason Leopold's writing rather than third-party source. The above user and IP address have the same behavior as Jimmy McDaniels and his IP addresses did. The same user appears to have used 75.56.205.222 from 15 March 2012 until 7 April 2012, then created RavenThePackIsBack on 6 May 2012, moving to 75.56.200.58 starting 30 June 2012. This is fairly easy to verify from user contribs, since they are all SPAs and each has less than 20 edits. No checkuser has been requested as CUs won't verify IP addresses, and WP:DUCK seems to be sufficient here. Yworo (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Hi everyone. I just got a message about this. I'm making edits and additions to the article and I hope people check it. Another person on the talk page where I left comments said because I live in Hollywood or because I live close to another person who was making changes than I was being accused of being that person or working for that person. So I am not sure what i need to do. I feel like this isn't right. I'm just doing stuff that I thought other people would do and wanted to keep the page updated. I thought pages are supposed to be balanced and have new material and why can't it be positive if it's positive? Why does it always have to be negative? Why can't it be improved with positive material? See the stuff on Leopold with the Air Force? Why can't that go into the Truthout one too? That's what I added? Can someone please look at my edits and tell me what they think? Also, please look at the talk page where I left some comments. All the stuff I added went to those third party sources and one from the original source and then to the third party source. I don't think there was anything that was frequent to the Leopold stories. Only ones that showed where a story first started and then to the third party source that wrote about it afterwards. So that's not true that I didn't cite the third party source cuz it shows I did and that's what I found and put in. Can you guys see that? Also, no one seems to care that there's nothing that gets updated and that's what I was trying to do. That's all. RavenThePackIsBack (talk) 21:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, this is one of the things I added. So you see the story I linked to was the original story cause I wanted to show where it started and then the other story was the one that wrote about the first story. A person told me on the talk page there isn't a person's name listed who wrote it and so that wasn't good so i said I would look for something else cuz I didn't know. But here's the stuff I added:


 * =Freedom of Information Act Lawsuit ==
 * Leopold and the group National Security Counselors sued the FBI, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the National Archives and Records Administration and other government agencies and that they violated a section of the FOIA law for five years by refusing to give people who file FOIA requests a date as to when their requests will be ready as the law requires.[1] In June, in response to Leopold's lawsuit, the FBI and the National Archives and the Office of Director of National Intelligence issued new policy guidelines to their staff and told them to comply with requests about giving estimated dates of completion regarding FOIAs when they're asked for it. FBI's FOIA head David Hardy explained the new policy guidelines in a declaration. RT said, "It might be a small victory, but a victory nonetheless." [2] RavenThePackIsBack (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Obvious sock. Also blocked active IP.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 21:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Master blocked 1 month. Forgot that previously.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 13:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)