Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jonathansamuel/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
Current list of socks here



Evidence submitted by Snowded
The original sockmaster has an obsession with the Heidegger article and after receiving a block for edit warring starting creating fairly obvious socks. As fast as they are blocked new ones are created. If possible we could really do with a range block here.-- Snowded TALK  19:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Brain.wilson needs to be checked as the pattern is a little different from the others. Maybe a meatpuppet mind you as its the same subjects and same obsession/style -- Snowded TALK  19:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Snowded refuses to engage in substantive discussions. He repeatedly claims that I am a sock puppet and attacks me. When I respond to his attacks, he does not reply. Rather, he moves on to some other page to attack me again.

His evidence that I am a sock puppet appears to be that I agree with jonathansamuel that one should refer to Nazis as "Nazis" not the more obscure "National Socialist". Brain.wilson (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * I added the list of possible socks above. Note that some of them may be meatpuppets rather than sockpuppets due to off-wiki canvassing urging users to "log in, go to (tinyurl redirect to the history page of Martin Heidegger), and press "Undo" next to edits by mtevfrog, Snowded, UserVOBO, Themfromspace". I have been involved in reverting the edits of some of these users and I endorse the SPI and would like a checkuser to go through the above accounts to rout out any possible sleepers.  The latest account used, AlfredJAyer, was clearly a sleeper for a few days in order to get the autoconfirmed status necessary to edit the Martin Heidegger article.  Them  From  Space  19:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * re Page protection. I don't see how that would work.  Each sock is set up and creates an edit history before they start the edit waring.  If a page can be protected based on length of service fine. -- Snowded  TALK  20:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Endorse comments by Snowded above. Something needs to be done to stop the flood of sock and/or meat puppets at this article. UserVOBO (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
personally I'm doubtful as to the benefits of a check here, looks like page protection would be a better solution, SpitfireTally-ho! 19:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Brain.wilson indefinitely blocked and tagged along with AlfredJAyer, whose block is now indefinite. –MuZemike 03:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Themfromspace
This is a pretty obvious addition (compare user's contributions to the above socks). I don't think a CU is necessary per the duck test.  Them From  Space  06:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Blocked. Edit warring, too. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 23:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
































Evidence submitted by Mephistophelian
Since 19 September 2008, the puppetmaster has had an on-going interest in the Martin Heidegger article. All of the puppets play a role in continuing the edit-war, including the IPs, which appear to be instrumental in attacking editors who revert changes that contradict Jonathansamuel's belief that each instance of 'National Socialism' should be replaced by 'Nazism', the abbreviation of the former. The arguments, mannerisms and types of abuse are identical across all of Jonathansamuel's puppets. 96.240.143.90 has already been blocked, whereas the other 96.*.*.* IP addresses seems to be current. Named accounts, possibly including meat puppets, are still being used to continuously vandalise the Heidegger article as seen most recently on the 13 March 2010:. Mephistophelian (talk) 03:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sock farm now well into double figures. Pattern is to create some edits around sports of geography pages, then hit the Heidegger page until blocked.  I would imagine a constant stream of socks are in preparation.  We really need a range block here -- Snowded  TALK  06:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Added Gadmuemi on the basis of his comments regarding the etymlogy of 'Nazi', attempts at the provocation of other users, e.g. UserVOBO, and his similarity in behaviour to Jonathansamuel. Might be a meat puppet, but most likely to be an extension of the sock farm. Mephistophelian (talk ● contributions) 04:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Since I have reverted many of Jonathansamuel's edits, this user seems to have some grudge against me. See IP editor 72.93.213.25's vandalism to my talk page here (which restored trolling), comments on the Heidegger talk page here, and its comments on Mephistophelian's talk page here. Could be a meat puppet rather than a sock puppet. UserVOBO (talk) 08:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Also Bondates and Ermadine, both of which should be obvious on behavioral grounds, and EddieVitelli based on comment at the Heidegger talk page here. UserVOBO (talk) 08:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
I see three accounts in the last few hours making the aforementioned edits at Talk:Martin Heidegger:







If not blocked already, I will be blocking all three: the quacking is loud enough that they're clear sockpuppets. —C.Fred (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Self-endorsing for CheckUser attention as protection won't do much good, as the editors get autoconfirmed before going straight to Heidegger. –MuZemike 20:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ - the following herd, as being the same editor;






































































































 * - A l is o n  ❤ 07:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Blocked and tagged. Tim Song (talk) 08:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Ibbn
Same MO as the recent socks that turned up at Talk:Martin Heidegger: nine edits adding "x"s to an article before removing them with the tenth in order to achieve autoconfirmed status, then making an edit to the semi-protected talk page (this time to make an edit request for more instances of "Nazism" in the article).

Ibn (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
I agree with Ibn, identical behaviour and MO. Definitely the same individual. Mephistophelian † 15:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
All accounts have already blocked and been tagged. Elockid ( Talk·Contribs ) 01:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Wknight94

 * Sleeper check please. All above have been blocked.  Thank you.   Wknight94  talk  14:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Wknight94  talk  14:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

for a sleeper check, all the accounts match Jonathansamuel's MO, and (with the exception of Oodropyl (who very strongly matches the MO)) they all edit in related areas, thanks, SpitfireTally-ho! 15:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ranges are too wide and too used to allow for an effective rangeblock. -- Avi (talk) 03:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, they all appear to be blocked/tagged and a rangeblock is not really possible at this point. Marking as closed. TN X Man  03:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Themfromspace
Two more for the pile. Same modus operandi as above (edit warring on the Heidegger article concerning Nazism; prepping accounts to autoconfirmed status when needed to avoid semi-protection). Pretty clear per the duck test.  Them From  Space  02:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
for another sleeper check, please. SpitfireTally-ho! 19:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I have found the following accounts. --Deskana (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * all the accounts named have been blocked and tagged. Thanks for repoting the case, themfromspace, and thanks for the check Deskana. SpitfireTally-ho! 18:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by UserVOBO
HerrWiki and SteveAzniak have very similar edit histories both to each other and to the indef blocked user Jonathansamuel. The HerrWiki account was created on April 11, 2010 at 16:41 and the SteveAzniak account was created on April 12, 2010 at 23:41; this was very soon after a past investigation into Jonathansamuel's socks resulted in many of them being blocked (see the case in the SPI archive, Report date April 11 2010, 14:41). The name HerrWiki is similar to MonsieurWiki, another blocked sock of Jonathansamuel's. Both accounts remained dormant until mid-May 2010; HerrWiki began editing on May 10 and SteveAzniak began editing on May 13. The accounts made similar edits to the same part of the Martin Heidegger article (concerning contemporary European responses to Heidegger, especially the critical response of Emmanuel Levinas) within days. See this edit by HerrWiki on May 10, 2010, and this edit by SteveAzniak on May 13, 2010. Both changed "National Socialist" to "Nazi" or "Nazism", which was something Jonathansamuel repeatedly attempted to do. These accounts have since supported each other; see for example HerrWiki's reverting my reversion of SteveAzniak. They have both tended not to use edit summaries (but began doing so after I observed that this was behavior similar to Jonthansamuel's), and have never discussed their changes on the Heidegger talk page. UserVOBO (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur, its a near exact repetition of the same behaviour -- Snowded  TALK 22:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that the SteveAzniak account is continuing the same behavior after being informed of this investigation. UserVOBO (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

JosephineJacquelineSusanBrown is another new account with a suspiciously similar edit history to HerrWiki and SteveAzniak. Like them, it was created in mid-April (April 14), remained dormant until mid-May (May 16), then made about ten or eleven edits to get past semi-protection and start editing Martin Heidegger. Making enough edits to get past semi, then editing Martin Heidegger, is the same basic behavior as Jonathansamuel's other horde of socks. It shows an interest in editing articles about bands and musicians to reach the necessary number of edits to get past semi, again like Jonathansamuel's many other socks, and like them tends not to use edit summaries or talk pages. UserVOBO (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For more evidence, see this edit by JosephineJacquelineSusanBrown, which among other things changed "National Socialism" to "Nazism". UserVOBO (talk) 03:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
To check for any more sleepers and a possible rangeblock. -- B s a d o w s k i 1   05:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead the blocked the three accounts listed above, but I support a checkuser to find sleepers or plan a rangeblock. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The accounts above are ✅. I couldn't find any sleepers, but that really wasn't surprising, since he is in a very, very large range, much too large to rangeblock J.delanoy gabs adds  23:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC) All blocked and tagged NW ( Talk ) 01:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by UserVOBO
Jonathansamuel recently edited Martin Heidegger using multiple accounts (HerrWiki, SteveAzniak, and JosephineJacquelineSusanBrown) that were created in April and remained dormant until May. Each was created soon after the other, and they started editing in the same order they were created: HerrWiki was created April 11 and started editing on May 10, SteveAzniak was created on April 12 and started editing on May 13, JosephineJacquelineSusanBrown was created on April 14 and started editing on May 16. JSirgento is another account that follows the exact same pattern. It was created on April 17, and started editing on May 21. It made about ten or eleven edits (enough to get past semi-protection), then started editing Martin Heidegger, which is also similar to Jonathansamuel's socks.

I realize that this by itself may not seem like strong evidence, but it's a bit much of a coincidence that a fourth account with this exact pattern of account creation and editing would start editing Martin Heidegger immediately after three others were blocked by EdJohnston on May 20, and given Jonathansamuel's extreme persistence, that does seem like a reason to suspect it's him. The behavior of this account is not exactly the same as the three socks mentioned above (unlike them, it has tended to use edit summaries), but it wouldn't be surprising if Jonathansamuel modified his behavior somewhat in an attempt to avoid detection.

This account seems to have the same interest in the word "Nazi" that was always Jonathansamuel's main obsession. See this edit adding the word "Nazi" to the article. The edit summary ("Notice, incidentally, that this selectionally introduced contextual feature of Heidegger's rectorship introduces terminological dichotomies") implies that the account wishes to make further changes to the language used, which at least suggests an interest in changing "National Socialist" to "Nazi." UserVOBO (talk) 00:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This account has made edits to the talk page (such as this) and the article (like this) that just possibly might be attempts to make legitimate contributions, but that look rather more like deliberate borderline vandalism - unfunny parodies of Heidegger's jargon and language. Compare this revision of a Jonathansamuel sockpuppet's user page for evidence about his sense of humour. UserVOBO (talk) 01:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Based on this edit, which did a rewrite that among other things changed "National Socialist" to "Nazi", I think it's reasonably clear that JSirgento is Jonathansamuel. UserVOBO (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by UserVOBO (talk) 00:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The timing of edits is very suspect from an account that had been created but lay inactive for several weeks (in less than 24 hours after the block was imposed, editing picked up). Additionally, while edit summaries on the whole are rather distinct from older socks, I do still see distinct similarities (which I would rather not disclose publicly, but would detail on request) in writing style and edit summaries which would warrant a checkuser. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 05:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

✅

J.delanoy gabs adds 20:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've blocked JohnHenryWano and Sirgento. Another account not yet reported here, which shows behavioral similarities, is . I have blocked that account as well and tagged it as a suspected sock. EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by UserVOBO
New account (created May 22) that has an interest in Heidegger (like all Jonathansamuel socks) and Bertrand Russell (like many of them). Compare this edit to Bertrand Russell by blocked Jonathansamuel sock JSirgento (adding the unsourced text "However, there is some question as to whether the aged Russell was the author of all of the statements issued in his name during his final years") to this edit by OrdinaryFattyAcid, which, among other things, added the unsourced text "It is unclear to what extent his staff composed it, or whether he authorized it in its final form" - referring to the same statement as in JSirgento's edit. JSirgento's edit was reverted even before the account was blocked as a sock, so this could look like Jonathansamuel trying to restore his preferred material to the article using another sock. I realize that this isn't conclusive evidence by itself, but it looks suspicious.

I apologize in advance if I've got this one wrong. Generally I wouldn't think this was strong enough evidence to base a case on, but I think it's worth checking, since Jonathansamuel could well be trying to do some less obvious sockpuppetry, rather than stuff he knows by now will get him blocked quickly. UserVOBO (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by UserVOBO (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

– Behavioral evidence and editing patterns clearly indicate that this is Jonathansamuel; no CU necessary. That said, I've indefinitely blocked and tagged the account. –MuZemike 15:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)