Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jokestress/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
WP:DUCK. Jokestress is the activist Andrea James. Andrea James has campaigned against J. Michael Bailey, Kenneth Zucker, Ray Blanchard, and James Cantor for many years. For background, please see this journal article. In the 2013 case Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology, ArbCom found that "Jokestress is a prominent party to an off-wiki controversy involving human sexuality, in which she has been sharply critical of certain individuals who disagree with her views, and has imported aspects of the controversy into the English Wikipedia to the detriment of the editing environment on sexuality-related articles. (FoF 3)" Jokestress is banned from "the topic of human sexuality and gender, including biographies of people who are primarily notable for their work in these fields."

Hist9600 is obviously not new to Wikipedia. The bulk of Hist9600's edits cast Bailey, Zucker, Blanchard, or Cantor in a bad light. In particular, Andrea James characterised Bailey as a eugenicist because he used to subscribe to an email listserv run by Steve Sailer. Hist9600 has done the same at Human Biodiversity Institute. gnu 57 15:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * On-wiki, Jokestress had serious conflict with User:James Cantor over hebephilia and transgender topics. Jokestress was intent on adding COI tags to articles Cantor had edited: see for example here and here. Hist9600 made <50 innocuous edits between May and September 2022, then dove into the gender controversy topic area and started adding COI and connected-contributor templates to articles Cantor had edited . gnu 57 17:37, 5 November 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

 * From a technical perspective, unrelated. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * From a behavioral point of view, there's certainly a lot of editing overlap, but I'm not seeing enough specific similarities to justify going against the CU finding of unrelated. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)