Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnny Squeaky/Archive

08 November 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Summary: Johnny Squeaky and I got into a heated discussion at the Leah Remini talk page back in July. It concluded Johnny harrasing me on my talk page with an inaccurate warning template   , and ending with Johnny accusing me of being associated with the Church of Scientology  and leaving an email address (of which I question its authenticity). At this point, I asked Johnny to please stop harassing me.

Since that time IP 75.172.16.81 and IP 71.212.42.24 have both approached me with similar accusations. It appears that right before IP 71.212.42.24 placed the accusation on the Steven Hassan page, Johnny showed up but saved the page without typing anything. Both IP's come from the same geographic area, Washington state, and the email address Johnny gave me comes from someone in Washington state as well (while I question the emails relationship to Johnny, I do believe it is at least someone Johnny knows and wants the Church of Scientology to harass). As seen with his recent relationship to TheycallmetheDoctor,           Johnny has a habit of throwing out accusations to harass individuals. Coffeepusher (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I don't see how a dubious email address locates something anywhere. I will say that the two IP edits are fishy, and it is not inconceivable that Squeaky realized he should log out to make a shitty comment. But I don't think there's enough here for a CU on the IP addresses, and it is possible that the IPs found reference to CoS commentary and played on it--but that's a bit too coincidental. Squeaky is, of course, a highly disruptive editor, whose favorite MO is passive-aggressive personal attacks. I propose that the SPI be closed (there's no point in blocking the IPs now) and that Coffeepusher quickly report any future personal attacks by Squeaky at a drama board, and that future IP edits simply be reverted as trolling (perhaps with a short block) until a clearer pattern emerges. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Closing per comments by Drmies. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

20 April 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Johnny Squeaky is an editor whose MO is either removing "trivia" sections or renaming them. In January 2014 a community sanction was passed whereby he was limited to 1RR across the project and prohibited from renaming trivia sections on all articles. This can be viewed at Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive824. A month later Taco Viva created an account. The following evidence brings me to believe that they are one and the same editor:
 * The preoccupation with removing or renaming trivia sections:
 * 1) Satoshi Nakamoto
 * 2) Dan Toler
 * 3) Eddie Nash
 * 4) Bathysphere
 * 5) Persistent reverts at Barbarella (film) (note: if Taco Viva is indeed Johnny Squeaky he is also violating his 1RR sanction as well the "trivia" sanction):, , , , , , , ,.
 * The use of similar language in explaining his edits. Compare the following two talk page comments:
 * 1) Johnny Squeaky at Talk:Soylent Green. Key sentence: "But it is disingenuous to include "trivia" and call it "In Popular Culture" when in fact it is "trivia". Disingenuous."
 * 2) Taco Viva at Talk:Barbarella (film). Key sentence: "Calling it something that it is not changes nothing, and doing so is disingenuous."
 * The use of similar quirky punctuation:
 * 1) Johnny Squeaky at Talk:Soylent Green. Note the use of "=//=" when he signs his signature.
 * 2) Tacoc Viva at User talk:Taco Viva. Note the use of "=//=//" in the "Leave Comments" title.
 * His addition of comments atTalk:Kleargear, a discussion that Johnny had heavily participated in and predated the registration of Taco Viva's account.
 * Johnny also has form for socking, having been blocked for it. Another editor has also voiced suspicions about Taco Viva having had previous accounts on Wikipedia.

IMO there is a compelling case to be answered here, especially since both accounts are have been active in the same period. Also, if Johnny has created a sock to evade his sanction then this is a serious breach of community trust. Betty Logan (talk) 03:00, 20 April 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

 * ✅ Courcelles 04:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Given the level of disruption and that the sock account has been used since around Johnny Squeaky's last block for sock puppetry I am indef'ing the account. Closing Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

11 June 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

The two fundamental things which characterized the banned editor Johnny Squeaky -- both in his original account, and his blocked sock, Taco Viva -- were an intense focus on "In popular culture" sections, which JS wanted to eliminate however possible, and an extreme combativeness which could make him the poster child for WP:BATTLEFIELD. These same characteristics are prominent in the editing of the IP 75.177.156.78 as well. A glance at the editor's contribution list shows that popular culture lists are a very strong focus for them, even referring to these sections as "trivia" (A JS/TV trait), and their combativeness can be seen in their interactions on my talk page, which includes posting there numerous times after I asked them not to. (In particular, see the IPs templating me for "Biting a newbie" after I warned off someone who was putting links to a revisionist/Holocaust deniers' website on an article about a Nazi atrocity. ) It should be noted that when I told the IP in question to leave my page, saying: "[Y]ou're done here, good bye, Johnny Squeaky/Taco Viva.", the IP's response was not to deny being Johnny Squeaky/Taco Viva, but to say: "If you mean done on Wikipedia, not by a long shot." which can be read as a de facto admission. I will be the first to admit that this is not an airtight case. I would love to have more evidence in the way of use of language, but I do not. However, considering that Johnny Squeaky is a banned editor who has already been discovered socking once, I think the evidence is sufficient to justify having a CheckUser look into it. Please note that, because of his combative and rather vindictive nature, I'm not notifying the IP of this report - but also note that the IP has clearly been following my contribution list, so I expect to see them here soon anyway. BMK (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC) BMK (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. I can't say that I'm surprised by the decline, although I wish it were otherwise, and I'll point out aqain that the policy of not connecting IPs to accounts gives sockmasters a positive advantage in using IPs for their activities.  It also penalizes account holders in a number of ways - but that's a windmill that I don't plan to tilt at. BMK (talk) 19:34, 12 June 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

 * - CheckUsers will very rarely publicly connect an IP with an account onwiki and without evidence of longer term disruption with socks I don't see the need for a (fishing) sleeper check. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * IP blocked 3 days Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)