Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JoetheMoe25/Archive

22 September 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Proof of same editor: JoetheMoe25 has inadvertantly admitted editing as 75.72.35.253. Here he is as IP 75 creating a new discussion topic. Now here he is as JoetheMoe25, in his first ever edit to that Talk page, asking where his discussion topic went (it had been archived). In this damning edit, he edits and clarifies his JoetheMoe25 comment (left just minutes earlier) as IP 75.72.35.253. In addition, the above accounts and IPs have far too many completely unrelated articles in common to be attributed to mere coincidence, and their discourse on Talk pages and in edit summaries is identical (i.e.; constantly citing WP:FANCRUFT). The Sknmak1 WP:SPA was created within the last 48 hours, and appears to have the sole purpose of supporting Joe/IP in his edit disputes on the related articles: Bill Roggio, Long War Journal and Mustafa Mohamed Fadhil -- and curiously left a comment of support on the IP 75 talk page, but then deleted it after socking concerns were raised. Sknmak1 reinstates a comment by IP 75, after it was deleted just 6 minutes earlier. Sknmak1 is not new to Wikipedia. IP 71, IP 75 and JoetheMoe each make sequential edits to the identical section of History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi starting August 5th, and the IPs geolocate to the same location. Proof of sock abuse: Note this edit summary from IP 75 wherein he states (It's going to keep coming back again and again and again and again. Whatever makes you think I'm JoetheMoe25 either. I didn't revert this time either) -- denying that he is JoetheMoe25 (that's deception); promising to revert-war "again and again..." (that's disruption); and with that edit he evades WP:3RR violation (that's abuse). Checkuser is requested to flush out additional socks related to this farm. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Hey, I'm not the IP or JoetheMoe25. I agree however that the IP is clearly JoetheMoe25. I simply agree with the IP that Bill Roggio is unreliable. I don't even live in Minnesote. I live in New Jersey. Get your facts straight before accusing me of being a sockpuppet. --Sknmak1 (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Please take note of this edit - note that a comment by one of the IP was autosigned by SineBot as being from Sknmak1, which he then removed. WP:DUCK. GregJackP  Boomer!   22:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Struck, see comment by SS, below.  GregJackP   Boomer!   23:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Please be more careful in your analysis. The section was originally posted by 75, who (probably inadvertently) removed some other comments when posting it. User: Haploidavey restored the deleted content here, but (I assume again accidentally) removed 75's comment. User: Sknmak1 fixes this mistake here. The comment is already signed, but Signbot is confused because the signature of 75 (from the original comment) does not match the user who restored the content. This is not evidence for (or against, of course) sockpuppetry. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @Stephan Schulz: Regardless of GregJackP's misunderstanding, it is still highly likely that IP 75 = Sknmak1. Nothing you have said disagrees with my statement above.  A comment was posted by IP 75 on the very busy WP:ANI board; then it was inadvertantly deleted; and in less than 6 minutes, that deletion was corrected by 48-hour old suspected sock of IP 75 (Sknmak1).  I think it is unusual that an un-notified, inexperienced editor (Sknmak1) would know about that new ANI report.  It is even more unlikely that the same un-notified editor would know within minutes that an edit to that ANI report was accidently deleted -- UNLESS the original poster of that deleted edit and the re-instating poster are the same person.  Meatpuppet at best, possible proxy or blatant sock at worst. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I've blocked JoetheMoe25 and 75.72.35.253. I'll let others decide on Sknmak1 and the other IP.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * - Behavior justifies a closer check, including a new user knowing to modify an ANI discussion. I would also suggest a sleeper check due to the potential for multiple accts being produced as a result of this investigation. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 15:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Group 1 Group 2
 * ✅ The following editors are almost certainly sock/meat puppets based on technical and behavioral evidence:

The two groups appear ❌ to each other. -- Avi (talk) 02:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to declare Zhoban the sockmaster of group 1, and tag accordingly. I'll let a clerk take care of splitting the reports.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm throwing a monkey wrench in the works because the 75.xxx IP is without a shadow of a doubt Mamalujo. The IP was previously blocked as this editor and they returned to the exact same articles such as Cristero War and have been editing consistently under the IP ever since.


 * ✅ - I have copied the results in Group 2 to Sockpuppet investigations/Zhoban. AGK  [•] 22:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Marking case for archival, AGK  [•] 22:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)