Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jonadabsmith/Archive

04 March 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

I AfD's a couple of articles by User:Jonadabsmith -- see Articles for deletion/Luke Nash-Jones and Articles for deletion/London Students for Britain. Jonadabsmith responded with various lines of argument, including my political interests (which are expressed on my User page) at, etc.

Shortly after, Talk:London Students for Britain saw contributions from the three suspected socks, or possibly meatpuppets. All three are brand new accounts, all are arguing against deletion of the page, all mention the same argument based on my political interests:, and. Bondegezou (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * This is incredibly obvious sockpuppetry, so obvious that three separate users (including me) filed reports separately. GABHello! 22:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This is not "Incredibly obvious" - these accounts have nothing to do with myself, and you can't prove otherwise. Your mission to take down these page is so sad - guys get a beer or something :) Jonadabsmith (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that the accounts in question were created on the same day andtheir only edits are to a page you have a vested interest, the classic 'it's totally another account and just a fluke' internet excuse and the fact that 'we can't prove otherise' is just asking for grief. You have no idea the tools available to admins. Half  Shadow  06:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, when I asked about a possible conflict of interest, I was pointed to the existence of Students for Britain.  does exactly the same here. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have requested CU to sort this out, especially due to the suspected sock presence at the AFD: . Not sure if these diffs are just the same as above, but here is the evidence I provided in my (unnecessary) filing:


 * The three suspected socks were created at these times on March 4, 11:28 (Chloe), 10:55 (Mark), 10:35 (Alexicon). All are SPAs defending this page alone: . All are attacking as biased and saying the deletion is politically-motivated, and generally being very aggressive. For behavior of the suspected master, see here, as well as these: . GABHello! 23:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Even assuming they're unique accounts and not socks, they're in obvious violation of WP:MEAT. Blackmane (talk) 01:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Shortly after the first possible puppet appeared, I posted a note about WP:CAN -- see -- so they were warned early on. Bondegezou (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The three new accounts bumble around on article-talk pages about being unable to find the AFD even after the original master was interacting on the AFD. So they might all be socks of each other but just MEAT not SOCK of the original, or they might all be MEAT. CU correlation might help tease that apart. But even if unrelated, their opinions would obviously carry little weight at the AFDs. Probably could just block the three new ones as an off-wiki-recruited deli-case even if not a textile-store. DMacks (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, in that case this would be a real butcher-shop of an AFD, what with all the obvious meat. GABHello! 20:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Note related ANI discussion at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Bondegezou (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Note that the following two accounts popped up on 8 March, to create Universities for Britain, which duplicates the content of the article that was being discussed at Articles for deletion/London Students for Britain: Cordless Larry (talk) 08:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Interesting, thanks for letting us know. Should we add them to the CU pile? GABHello! 13:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The following accounts are ✅ from each other and to the master:
 * I've blocked the confirmed puppets without tags. I’ll let a clerk decide what to do about the master, but I believe it is just as likely for the master to be engaging a meat puppet as it is for him to be a sock master. Either way, I'd block the master, but perhaps not indefinitely, but at least long enough for him to stop disrupting the two AfDs.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The following accounts are ✅:
 * Blocked, tagged, and now that the master has been blocked, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the confirmed puppets without tags. I’ll let a clerk decide what to do about the master, but I believe it is just as likely for the master to be engaging a meat puppet as it is for him to be a sock master. Either way, I'd block the master, but perhaps not indefinitely, but at least long enough for him to stop disrupting the two AfDs.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The following accounts are ✅:
 * Blocked, tagged, and now that the master has been blocked, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, and now that the master has been blocked, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, and now that the master has been blocked, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, and now that the master has been blocked, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)