Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jiujitsuguy/Archive

26 January 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Jiujitsuguy was given an indefinite topic ban due to persistent tendentious editing. Specifically at issue was this edit where he added the flag of Nazi Germany to the belligerents section of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War article.

Two days after his topic ban the two IPs have popped up at the exact same time one on that article and the other on the 1948 Palestine War article to make the same insertions.

In addition another editor User:AndresHerutJaim, who has previously engaged in IP sockpuppetry during an ARBPIA ban over another issue with flag icons in the belligerents section of articles in this topic area, logged in within an hour of the first insertion by JJG to add the same material to Wars involving Israel here and List of wars 1945–1989 here. Though they do not appear to be the same user, it is possible there is some off-wiki coordination going on between the two editors.

A check of the IPs against JJG would be good to see if they are the same editor. It is possible Andres is not coordinating with JJG, but the timing of their contributions does seem suspicious. The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 18:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

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


 * The editing in the Israel–Palestine area is so incestuous that it should be no surprise that when one editor drops the baton, another editor picks it up and runs with it. I don't see this as evidence of puppetry or coordination. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Those Turk Telekom IPs will be Ledenierhomme (see Sockpuppet investigations/Ledenierhomme/Archive). TDA, a good way to deal with the neverending socking by Ledenierhomme via servers in Iraqi Kurdistan, Iran, Turkey and the whole variety of methods/proxies he uses is to report it to User:Tnxman307 if it becomes disruptive. He is familiar with Ledenierhomme's MO and can apply range blocks. No evidence of off-wiki coordination has been presented, there is no evidence that AndresHerutJaim and JJG are the same person, and just like the recent Unomi vs BHB case, there's no reason to even consider it as a remote possibility.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting they were the same person, only that there may be coordination given the very short time frame. However, with the IPs I don't think your presumption is viable. These edits are very focused on a specific edit JJG made and closely timed to the indef ban.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no evidence of coordination and therefore no reason to believe that the correlation of events result from coordination. There's only one person who edits in the I-P topic with the MO that fits those IP edits in terms of the location of the servers, the nature of the edits, and their correlation in time with an ongoing dispute in articles he monitors, and that's Ledenierhomme. He's instantly recognizable to those who know him. Unfortunately the editor who did the most to keep him out of the topic area has been topic banned. There are 2 events, event A (JJG edit) and event B (Ledenierhomme edit). Event B happened because of event A, but B could have happened whether or not JJG was topic banned. You can't conclude that it happened because JJG was banned or that it indicates coordination between the IP and JJG. Editors like Ledenierhomme seek out conflict, they participate in these kind of edit wars when they see them no matter who made the edit and no matter whether the editor was subsequently topic banned.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 20:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have any specific reasoning for saying the IPs are not JJG? I see no evidence in any of the SPIs against Ledenierhomme that he ever edited from servers in Turkey. Saying, "well, this guy likes to get involved in edit wars and such" is not evidence.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This must be a joke or some people are getting desperate. --Shuki (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Another explanation is that some people are prone to seeing patterns even if they are Type I errors. Such a person might be good at finding sockpuppets and a useful resource for Wikipedia in the I-P conflict topic area despite some false positives.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 21:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Procedurally declining what is requested - CheckUsers do not publicly associate accounts with IP addresses. WilliamH (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No evidence has been provided connecting these accounts, CheckUser is declined and there's no behavioral evidence. Also, I've had admin involvement with JJG for some time, he's not this stupid. This is more than likely trolling. --WGFinley (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)