Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jmaxwell10/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Evading blocks to create the same hoax, compare Draft:In_the_End:_There's_Always_a_Disney_God to Draft:In The End: There's Always A Disney God (TV Mini-Series), In The End: There's Always A Disney God, In The End: There's Always A Disney God (TV Series), and so on... Spicy (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2021 (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

 * Same hoax indeed. - please block the sock indefinitely. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * For the record, there are three currently tagged accounts that were blocked outside of SPI:
 * --Blablubbs (talk) 12:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * . GeneralNotability (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * --Blablubbs (talk) 12:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * . GeneralNotability (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * . GeneralNotability (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

After this discussion, we found some hoax TV articles. I think the whole of Tex Brown is a hoax. All of the major contributors to the article except these two (the first of whom is an obvious sock) are blocked as Jmaxwell10 socks. I twice declined Draft:Tex Brown (Season 1) at AFC and could find no sources at the time relating to the show (really mad I didn't catch this as a hoax at the time). It was subsequently deleted twice as created by Jmaxwell10 socks, by and.

The creator,, is a very experienced contributor. I'm bringing them in even though I don't fully understand what role they played in this, if any, because I'm hoping some people familiar with the case will know what to do.

We've asked for G3'ing a couple of the TV articles but salting too would be a good idea. — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Forgot to say: has already been blocked but could be added to the sock list. — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand, but I'm struggling to rectify that Tex Brown seems to be a hoax and Werldwayd created it. I chose to notify Werldwayd in hope that they have the missing piece of the puzzle—I'm definitely hoping to be in the wrong here. — Bilorv ( talk ) 21:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * yep, that's the missing piece. Sorry, I thought I checked the talk page, and I've apologised to Werldwayd. I must say that I still don't believe this should remain an article, given it's now got just 3 unreliable sources and it's still not clear that this show ever got to the point of release, but maybe that discussion belongs elsewhere. — Bilorv ( talk ) 23:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

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


 * Have you looked at the article talk page, where Werldwayd had already voiced concerns about the article and the socks? It seems wholly improper, not to mention extremely rude, to list them as a suspect in the SPI. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm seeing this SPI report after I tagged the article for an AFD discussion. I'm having second thoughts now knowing about Werldwayd but I don't think this sock-magnet article is notable and I couldn't find any sources other than blogs and sites my browser prevents me from visiting. Wikigod8 roused my suspicions about this article as well. I think a CU check would be useful in case there are other articles that need to be examined more closely. Liz Read! Talk! 02:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Bbb23 for your clarification. By the way I am one individual and I am a male, so you can address me as "he" not them. The coleague User:Bilorv who initialized all this, has apologized personally posting a message on my talk page, plus that I believe we as long-term editors are thick skinned for such incidences and errors that are bound to happen in a span of many years of editing. As is clear by now, this Tex Brown article is not a hoax at all but is an actual online series that clearly had 1 season, I watched all episodes of season 1 actually. So no hoax. Probably the other two seasons others added are also valid but involve questionable sub-par edits that I tried to correct. But I lost all interest after the excellent Tripp Ali quit in mid-season 1 for contractual disagreements with the directors on pay and on scenes he objected to. About viability of articles, I have created thousands upon thousands of articles, and yes some were eventually deleted. So I am not picky nor desperately attached to one particular article including this one. If they gonna go, let them go.. Colleagues delete one article, I create 10 others elsewhere in other subjects. I mean no one article is worth risking a reputation I have built over the years... This article though is doomed because of lack of references and notability. It had at its launch as a series a certain lovely quality and good acting and subject matter to attract a network like a gay network or an alternative independent network to adopt it. But I guess the film management behind it missed a great opportunity. So now it can be considered as non notable series and I support the deletion of our article about it. If it stays it will attract further questionable edits, so good riddance. werldwayd (talk) 04:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
To say that is a "very experienced contributor" is an understatement. They have about 344,000 contributions since creating their account in 2007 (#87 of all Wikipedians) and have never been blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've removed Werldwayd from the list of suspected socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikibrown2 is ✅ to Jmaxwell10 plus the following accounts:
 * , closing. Mz7 (talk) 06:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , closing. Mz7 (talk) 06:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , closing. Mz7 (talk) 06:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , closing. Mz7 (talk) 06:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , closing. Mz7 (talk) 06:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , closing. Mz7 (talk) 06:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , closing. Mz7 (talk) 06:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

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


 * Created the same hoax as Draft:In_the_End:_There's_Always_a_Disney_God, Draft:In The End: There's Always A Disney God (TV Mini-Series), etc as in the July 28 filing at Template:In The End: There's Always A Disney God (podcast)
 * Also created Template:Reality Sucks, Don't It?, which appears to be tied into the same hoax -- Asartea   Talk  &#124;  Contribs  09:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Also added, which edited both templates above and has no edits beside that. -- Asartea   Talk  &#124;  Contribs  11:00, 7 February 2022 (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

 * So, it's a bit odd, because this one is a lot less hoaxy than the last ones, or at least than the deleted version of In the End: There's Always a Disney God I looked at. This time they're not claiming it's a show, but a podcast, and there actually is a podcast of this name. However, three similarities to the deleted article make clear this is the same person, not an innocent fan of the pod: the names on the cast list, the TV infobox, and an odd typo that I'm happy to share off-wiki with the reviewing admin if those two points aren't enough for them.As to the IP... I mean, yes, probably, but I can see the faintest possibility of someone seeing these templates created in the wrong namespace and wanting to help out. It's unlikely, but I'd rather give them the teeniest bit of rope and see if they stay interested in "Disney God"-related things after the account is blocked. But I wouldn't fault the reviewing admin for not wanting to take that chance, either. So, Please indef Klove200 as a proven sock of Jmaxwell10 and delete the two misplaced drafts under G5.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 11:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Blocked as requested. Close. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 13:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

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


 * Creating pages about Kenneth Nwanze here, here, and here.
 * Creating File:In The End: There's Always A Disney God and File:In The End- There's Always A Disney God.jpeg
 * Creating File:Reality Sucks, Don't It? (ebook).png Giraffer (talk·contribs) 22:42, 19 February 2022 (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

 * Not all of us are familiar with this particular case. You're supposed to give comparison diffs, not just ones of the new sock. I looked at the archive and satisfied myself this was a sock, so blocked, tagged, closing. Bbb23 (talk) 03:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
This user is showing similar behavior in article creation as the rest. Article creation for article deleted a couple of months ago as G5/block evasion. Note also the cross-wiki activity here which indicates similar articles being created as the socks on here. Griffinofwales (talk) SimpleWP 12:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC) Griffinofwales (talk) SimpleWP 12:02, 15 March 2022 (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

 * - -- RoySmith (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't quite get to confirmed, but I have no problem calling Greyking1 proven. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Article created in userspace matches same topic as previous socks. Similar activity at simple.wp (now all deleted by me). Griffinofwales (talk) SimpleWP 02:24, 17 March 2022 (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

 * Already blocked by Ohnoitsjamie - I added tags. I don't think another round of CU will be useful right now, since they were just checked about a day ago and nothing else turned up. I'll request global locks for this account and the one above since they're going cross-wiki now. Closing. Thanks. Spicy (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Same hoax as all previous socks in the archives about Disney God at Module:Sophomore Life. -- Asartea   Talk  &#124;  Contribs  07:42, 11 April 2022 (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

 * Quack quack; will clean up. (Wonder how many G5s we get in Module: space...) firefly  ( t · c ) 08:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)