Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jkmarold55/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Numerous accusations of disruptive editing in the edit summaries by 96.8.1.144 against Chisme ([]). User:Jkmarold55 then piped up with a very similar sounding threat here ([]). We now have 2600:387:2:805::89 again accusing Chisme of trolling (again using the edit summaries). ([]. All these similar threats and removal of the same information makes me think there is sockpuppetry going on. Skamecrazy123 (talk) 10:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * This is preposterous. Just because I oppose their views I'm being posted for sockpuppetry. All I tried to do was mediate an edit war. I didn't try to make any drastic actions. There is an edit war on that page, and people like Skamecrazy are yanking me into the middle of it JUST BECAUSE I DON'T SUPPORT HIS or CHISME'S VIEWS! What happened to the illusion of WIkipedia community? Jkmarold55 (talk) 11:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

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

If Jkmarold55 is such a big proponent of having a community, he should probably curtail his aggressive threats, such as this one. He keeps talking about his evidence, but he never provides it. Similarly, the IP keep threatening to report Chisme, but never did so. While it's not entirely clear to me if Jkmarold55 is indeed the same person as the IP(s), his claim that he is simply trying to mediate an edit war is, to use his own word, preposterous. Lepricavark (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as clarity goes, I can only go by what I've seen, and what I've seen seems very much like a quacking duck. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong,but I think the actions and attitude of the accused, as shown in the evidence statement and by his actions elsewhere, warrant a further look --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

You might also have a look at What all these editors, if they are more than one editor, have in common is: BTW, the Gurbaksh Chahal has for some time been a bone of contention on Wikipedia. Here's a newspaper article from 2014 which describes "a substantial and concerted effort to remove all mention of Chahal’s legal wrangles from his Wikipedia page". Chahall even hired a PR firm.
 * They want to remove or downplay all references to Gurbaksh Chahal's history of domestic violence.
 * In reverting my edits, they mention me by name and threaten to kick me off Wikipedia.
 * Their edits are either exclusively or nearly exclusively to the Gurbaksh Chahal article or to articles relating to Gurbaksh Chahal (Gravity4.

Something is rotten in Denmark! Chisme (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The way I see it, Chisme has extreme interest in the Gurbaksh Chahal and Gravity4 pages. I am not known to either, but very short time I have spent on Wikpedia, I do see Chisme and Skamecrazy123 have extreme obsessions to these subjects. I would not do a grave unjustice, without evidence, and say there is some paid trolling happening here. 'Chahal may have hired a PR firm', as said in your words. But who hires the trolls? All I request is to ensure my posts on Wikipedia aren't trolled on, especially when they are written with neutrality and rules of wikipedia in perspective. Thank you. Jui89 (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There's nothing quite like watching someone hang themselves with their own rope. Carry on Jui89 --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed about the rope. This is the same Jui89 whose first edit at Wikipedia on 28 October 2016 was to delete the reference to Gurbaksh Chahal's jail sentence from his article, who attempted to scrub the article even more thoroughly an hour later, who disappeared until four days ago when he removed all references to Chahal's domestic violence from the Gravity4 article. Who here has an agenda based on his/her history of edits at Wikipedia?
 * To change the subject, what happens now? It looks like 96.8.1.144 has been operating several sock puppets. Does he/she get banned at this point? Chisme (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

El C writes below, "Unless there are CU results I'm missing, there might not be a sockmaster and there may be multiple (pro Chahal) individuals." There may well have been a concerted effort by "multiple (pro Chahal) individuals." User Lingveno, who has posted here and at the Gurbaksh Chahal article, wrote the following on Chahal's Talk page, "WP:CoI - payed by Kay Kaur with 200 USD through Upwork, hired for mediation in order to make the article neutral." Kay Kaur is Chahal's sister, Kamal Kaur? So Chahal's sister offered $200 to people who will work on her brother's Wikipedia articles. Who besides Lingveno is being paid? IMHO, for the sake of Wikipedia integrity, the Gurbaksh Chahal article needs a "This page is currently semi-protected so that only established registered users can edit it" tag. Chisme (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The job was held open for multiple hires, and I know that at least two people were employed to edit the article. However, it is not currently possible to know if anyone beyond those two were contracted. - Bilby (talk) 02:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So there were two? Who besides Lingveno was paid? And just out of curiosity, do you or anyone else at Wikipedia track this stuff? Chisme (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It is less certain, but Jkmarold55 appeared to be paid for the job as well. Yes, a few people here watch out for this sort of thing, noting that we do permit paid editing, so long as there is disclosure. Lingveno has been very open about his jobs, which is good to see, and he has been meeting the disclosure requirements. - Bilby (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Just noticed this account after a comment at Articles for deletion/Tomas Gorny (4th nomination) and found out that I had interacted with the user at Articles for deletion/Cell Clinic Ltd. ‎ as well. The former has a lot of apparent sock/meat activity, and the latter was a suspicious paid editing/COI article creation, though no apparent sock or meat stuff. I'm not sure if there is a sock scheme or a meat scheme here, but the editor's AfD activity raises suspicions here. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I know this isn't the place to discuss it, and that Wikipedians must have debated it for some time before concluding that paid people can edit, but I find it very frustrating to try to reach consensus with people who have a mercenary stake in editing articles. How I am supposed to trust Lingveno's good faith when I know he is being paid. His interest in editing the Gurbaksh Chahal article is solely to please the person who will pay him. He has no objective interest. Moreover, it's extraordinarily naive to think that people who are paid to edit an article will disclose it. Chisme (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  22:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  23:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  16:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  17:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Added above two accounts, both stale but likely to be the person doing the removal. Still looking...
 * Added above two accounts, both stale but likely to be the person doing the removal. Still looking...
 * Added above two accounts, both stale but likely to be the person doing the removal. Still looking...
 * This account is not stale and is the person in question doing the removals. Also, lots of IPs...
 * This account is not stale and is the person in question doing the removals. Also, lots of IPs...
 * Indeffing Jui89 and the throw-away accounts. Jui is avoiding scrutiny. 75.15 IP blocked one week. This blocks accounts/IPs which I think are up to no good. I haven't seen enough evidence to tie this to the named master. Leaving open for additional evidence by those making the case as well as the continued opportunity for investigation. No tags applied yet because I don't know who will be the ultimately named master.
 * Unless there are CU results I'm missing, there might not be a sockmaster and there may be multiple (pro Chahal) individuals. El_C 22:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * which is static and leads us to . Hardblocking IP for one year as it is static and looks used for meat/sock activity. Also, after seeing the latest round of communication with the named master, I'm indeffing him as a COI, undisclosed paid sock account whose current, contradicting answers lead me to think the community cannot trust him at all. Closing.
 * Reopening - there are more accounts here.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Also ✅ to are  and ; both blocked and tagged. Reclosing.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  21:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

See evidence of hiring paid editors off site in this AfD. More meatpuppeting but filing report for Admin attention. Legacypac (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I am extremely thankful for this investigation if I knew about this procedure I would initiate this myself, as soon as I was accused of this wrong doing. I thought it will be my word against the other more experienced editors & I will be at a disadvantage since I am new to this community & I am not privy to the guidelines.
 * My page was nominated for failing notability & lack of reliable sources. Once those concerns were addressed in great detail, all of a sudden the discussion was steered towards Sock Puppetry & extremely implausible, unsubstantiated, mala fide, unascertainable & phony evidence were furnished as a proof against me indicating that I hired editors on a job portal to take part in the AfD. The claims made are void of any concrete proof or evidence whatsoever. I tried real hard to assume good faith but in face of such crass & crude language used against me on the discussion page, where I felt borderline harassed WP:HARASS - I was very demoralized for being attacked like that, where the merits of reliability & notability were no longer the center of discussion & I was wrongly accused of a wrong doing & the very important pillar of WP:CIVIL behavior was bulldozed. But thanks to this procedure, I am glad an objective administrator will look into this matter & run forensics to refute these accusations. Looking forward to your investigation & its speedy results.Thecapital15 (talk) 03:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify this from my perspective, I do not believe that either account belonged to Thecapital15. However, one is likely to belong to User:Jkmarold55, as one of the two editors hired. The other is another paid editor who uses socks to evade detection, but not one where I'm aware of the master. I believe that Legacypac's concern is not socking on Thecapital15's behalf, but meatpuppetry in regard to hiring someone specifically to place a keep vote, as opposed to improving the article. - Bilby (talk) 07:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Bilby is correct. I understand meatpuppetting to be a form of sock activity. If there is a better place to report this, please advise Legacypac (talk) 08:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The three accounts are ❌. WikiTimPedia is ✅ to Jkmarold55, blocked and tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * SPI moved to here. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Both Buddhabob and Jkmarold55 show a very similar editing style. Both edited with the hallmarks of a paid editor. As off-wiki evidence, at WP:COIN it was shown that the owner of the Jkmarold55 account was recently hired to add spam links to carvercantin.com, and shortly thereafter multiple links were added to WP by Buddhabob. - Bilby (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * @Ivanvector the off-wiki evidence was posted at WP:COIN, but it has been archived since I raised it. As it was posted there, I didn't send it to ArbCom. - Bilby (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well that's fine then. Would you be able to post a permalink to the archive? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I stuffed up and did above but I didn't make it clear. The link is . - Bilby (talk) 13:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * See also related SPI Sockpuppet investigations/Cavecanem101. Sro23 (talk) 01:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - if the evidence is off-wiki then there isn't anything we can do with it here. Cases involving private evidence should go to Arbcom or the functionaries. However, this is  per the overlap with  - both accounts worked on Michele Di Salvo and both !voted "retain" (not keep) in the article's AfD. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks for adding the link to the COIN archive. From reading that I think it's pretty apparent that Buddhabob and Cavecanem are not the same person, but I'd still like to see a check. Given the COIN evidence I'm blocking as a Jkmarold55 sock. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * started to run this but apparently couldn't finish, so I went ahead and re-ran it. The CU data for Jkmarold55 is so I can't be certain, but I do have Buddhabob on one of the IPs in the CU log that was checked in a previous Jkmarold55 investigation, so it's  they're related.
 * Buddhabob is ❌ to Cavecanem101. Katietalk 15:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Account now blocked, closing. GABgab 00:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Hello. I am posting here because DrumSalad was blocked for being a sock of Jkmarold55, but the evidence concerns only DrumSalad and Ryzensai. Some of the telling signs that these two accounts are operated by the same person are: Note that apart from Michael Breus, all articles created by Ryzensai (Holberton School, Julia Vari, Michael Burtov, Ted Greenberg, and Sabrina Kemeny) are re-creations of articles that were deleted G11, G5 or at AfD. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 06:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Ryzensai was created on 14 May 2019, the day after DrumSalad was blocked.
 * They both edit from about 12 pm UTC to about 2 am UTC.
 * Ryzensai has re-created Sabrina Kemeny, previously created by DrumSalad and deleted G5 - it may be worth checking how similar the two versions of the article are.
 * They have created their own talk page with that peculiar "below the line" thing: DrumSalad / Ryzensai

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

There is some off-wiki evidence that confirms their connection. GSS (talk |c|em ) 18:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Please, compare Ryzensai to DrumSalad.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * They seem to each other.  I'll block and tag as a suspected sock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)