Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John Dowsett/Archive

19 January 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

User is heavily adding original research to the same articles (Betamax, etc) and appears to have the same mentation in not comprehending wiki guidelines and repeatedly adding/inserting content despite guidance. JD received a 2-month ban, JJS started the account following the ban's release. Should this be the same person, the issues/banlog should be linked. &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  16:08, 19 January 2014 (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

 * I've asked John Johnstone Smith to note the previous account on their talk page other than that I don't see blockable abuse so I'm closing this case now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

29 January 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

JJS posts long incoherent OR essays to talk pages like talk:Betamax (diff) and talk:Videotape format war (diff) that are obviously written by the same person as "John Dowsett". The only difference is that while "John Dowsett" was posting such to the actual Betamax article page (diff), not to talk pages. From User talk:John Dowsett I see that he was blocked for persistent posting of OR. I originally thought that this SP was a block evasion attempt, but I believe the block has expired. Jeh (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Update: I see now that this same issue was raised just a week ago, and the case was dismissed due to "I don't see blockable abuse so I'm closing this case now". So I'd like to withdraw this case. Jeh (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The above request to withdraw stricken per my comments below. Jeh (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

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

I agree with this nomination and do not believe it should be dismissed. John Johnstone Smith has denied that he is John Dowsett. I had originally thought that Dowsett, blocked for 3 months in October 2013, had simply created a new name to edit under. At first I believed that new user creation to be a legitimate alternate account, perhaps because, after three months, Dowsett had forgotten his login credentials. However, since Smith denies being Johnstone Dowsett, but their similarity of editing belies this denial, I believe the alternate account was created to escape his checkered past. This might even be considered a valid clean start had Smith not a) denied the connection and b) proceeded in the exact same haranguing and tendentious style as Dowsett. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I see your point. I was trying to not "pile on." But you make a good point that while the previous situation may not have included blockable offenses, the current one might. I will "strike" my request to dismiss above. Jeh (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It may or may not be the same person, which is why I asked for an investigation. Too much similarity exists between the two, so between the rambling posts,his ignoring suggestions/warnings, and an apparent similar "mental state" of the writings suggest the person may be the same. JD's ban has elapsed, which is fine, but should this be the same person the history/block log should be shared.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  14:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I just went to Special:Contributions/John Dowsett, picked at random, glanced through and spotted (right at the end) the text "Editor of the Highams Park Alive Society.". The most recent edits by John Johnstone Smith were to Highams Park Lake, Waltham Forest, London. I don't think it's a coincidence. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * As I said on the archived case I don't see blockable abuse, however given the statement that they are not the same person I think we are at WP:SCRUTINY stage. Could a CU please confirm the link before we take any action? Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * - is stale for CU purposes. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that they are the same user and given the denial I've linked the block logs and I'll leave a message on JJS's talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)