Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jmoralesjr9/Archive

18 April 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

The above listed accounts appear to be a team of sock and or meat puppets that have been used to create the unambiguously promotional article New Organizing Institute and to defend the article in the AfD discussion. Some of the accounts have been created within the last 24 hrs while others have been around for sometime. None however have any significant record of edits. Yet they all have by the purest coincidence arrived to work on the same article and defend it in AfD. See NOI edit history and the linked AfD discussion. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

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

all of the users you added, plus carteroni, plus User:Wikitedium, User:Zackexley seem at least connected via Zack Exley, Exley, New Organizing Institute, Judith Freeman. it could as well be meatpuppets. somebody who organizes election campaigns surely has no difficulties to find a couple of people. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Rupert, you're getting carried away and doing damage to legit articles. The NOI is a real organization that thousands of people have participated in. Participants, critics and others have edited the article. If you saw a problem with the article, why not just improve the article? Wikitedium (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Also - I never even edited the article. (I just checked my history -- I assumed I had edited it once because you were involving me in this, but I never edited it.) I know Judith, but I don't even know any of the other users who have edited. At least this way I'm getting personal experience with the ordeal that I heard about so often from editors when I worked at WMF. And it sucks! It makes me feel so angry and disappointed. I know that this isn't representative of the Wikimedia community. But most people who experience this would not know that. Wikitedium (talk) 02:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem with the articles is they are about subjects of questionable notability, and are written as entirely promotional pieces. They do damage to Wikipedia!  Doubly so when they are subjects related to staff of the WMF, as it would appear that we don't have our own house in order, and therefore are duplicitous when we delete other articles which are below Wikipedia standards.  No critic ever edited the articles New Organizing Institute or Judith Freeman.  You may not have edited these articles, but they were written by a bunch of promotional "single purpose accounts" which is why there is a concern about sock puppets.  Fwiw, these types of deletion discussions and sockpuppet investigations are daily occurrences.  I suggest you take a look at the discussions on WikiProject Deletion sorting/Education to get a feel for what is representative of the Wikimedia community.  Perhaps you might even participate in some of those discussions. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikitedium, just to make it clear: personally i am not against having the NOI article - and did not sign the deletion discussion for this reason. disk space does not cost a lot, and have some information is better than having no ... i learnt that from anthere in some former COI case :) people are usually intelligent and can make their own picture. but, i do not particularly appreciate these "single article" or "low frequency topic editors" and i really do not care whatever kind of puppet this is. and i really _dislike_ if such users participate in deletion discussions, this is just like dancing on my nose and telling me all the time that i am the biggest idiot on earth. even if this might be true - i must admit i am still learning, every day, also out of my own every day imperfections. and having people around who are open, fair and honest make this a pleasure. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 05:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - - These are likely meatpuppets, but you never know your luck they might all be editing from work. Could the CU check for confirmation and sleepers please. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * For starters, the following are :


 * The following are ✅ socks of one another:


 * The following are :


 * appears ❌. Tiptoety  talk 02:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The stale accounts, being stale, can probably be left alone. If they were abandoned they aren't a problem unless and until they become active again. Obviously Special:contributions/Judithfreeman would have conflict of interest issues with these articles if she returned. I don't believe she is a sockpuppet, I suspect that she is Ms. Freeman herself.


 * N1ugl not only contributed to the AfD, but also created an older version of the article, at New organizing institute (which was speedily-deleted per G7). But there are a lot of edits unrelated to NOI; this person's edit history shows them to be more of a typical editor with interests all over the place. So I'm not sure what to do with the "possible" result. I suspect that the participation at this AfD was because their original version of the article was deleted and they wanted the newer one kept. I'm not comfortable calling this one a sockpuppet. This editor may also have been canvassed to come to the AfD to argue to keep it.


 * Tianamarie23's only edits to Wikipedia were to the now-deleted TOI article. But with the technical connection being only "possible", I'm not convinced that this editor is related. I think that it's likely that they were canvassed along with N1ugl and Ninasin (who is technically unrelated).


 * Of course the three confirmed socks need action taken. As the oldest account, I'm calling Jmoralesjr9 the sockmaster. I'll block them for a month with the warning that any further abuse of multiple accounts will lead to an indefinite block. The sockpuppets will be blocked indefinitely. With that I'll mark this case for closure. --  At am a  頭 17:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * has changed the master in this case. Please sort this out and move the case if necessary. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)