Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jontyjoesph/Archive

Report date March 10 2009, 08:02 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Making same disruptive edits to same articles (Frank Turner and Urban75) as these two socks FrankFakeTurner and Vchuffter Pontificalibus (talk) 08:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Pontificalibus (talk)

User:Jontyjoesph

User:Vchuffter

User:FrankFakeTurner


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * please supply diffs Mayalld (talk) 11:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions


 * Obvious. All socks blocked already for various reasons. I blocked the master for 2 weeks. Scarian  Call me Pat!  21:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Report date March 11 2009, 18:12 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Edits to Mike Slocombe starting 20 minutes after ban of User:Jontyjoesph, who is banned for multiple sockpuppetry. TrulyBlue (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by TrulyBlue (talk)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Exuse me but I am *not* a sock-puppet. There is a team of 25 us ( ALL volunteers apart from our director Andy I might add) who work on Urban75 / Mike Slocombe releated material. thanks. FatGary5436 (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

Has also removed warnings from user page and continued to make disruptive edits and removed db notice from Mike Slocombe -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I reported this to WP:ANI. Account seem to be in violation of the username policy. MuZemike 06:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * 25? 25 separate accounts, or 25 people working under the account FatGary5436? Peter Symonds ( talk ) 12:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we need a checkuser and maybe someone might want to ping Arbcom/WMF is this is a group effort.  MBisanz  talk 05:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Moved case from Sockpuppet investigations/FatGary5436, seeing as how the original case listed a blocked account as sock. Going to request be speedied.  Syn  ergy 15:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Mbisanz.  Syn  ergy 15:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

requested by Foxy Loxy  Pounce! For the reasons stated by MBisanz; the sockpuppeteer as said that there are 25 people working on creating that deleted article, if these users are part of a 'team' trying to create that article, it would be useful to know who these other people are. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 11:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * ✅ Jontyjoesph = (already blocked) -- Versa geek  23:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * based on a combination of editing behavior and technical details, that Jontyjoesph= FatGary5436 = these two fellows & a couple of BT pool IPs in the 86.132.x.x and 86.166.x.x ranges used by these folks to edit while logged out (probably not worth blocking at this point). -- Versa  geek  01:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Socks blocked, all done.  MBisanz  talk 06:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Report date April 23 2010, 15:29 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Sock of banned user Jontyjoesph.
 * Evidence submitted by Pontificalibus  (talk)

Inserting same deliberate factual errors e.g. 1 is similar to the factual errors inserted at 2 3 claiming Urban75 carries adverts and charges a fee to the Offline event. Pontificalibus (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Also Ze_grrrl_gamer first edit is reverting Enemytrue2's reverted edits 1 -- Pontificalibus  (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * And also Davids dedXP removing previous discussion of above edits from talk page 1-- Pontificalibus (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

what that was over a year ago i have only just discovered urban75. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enemytrue2 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Also there is no evidence we just agree with each other why dose Pontificalibus accuse anyone he dosnt agree with i wonder? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enemytrue2 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users

NO evidence here. Just a case of pontificus trying to push his own POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ExtraditionTeam (talk • contribs) 18:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Moved from WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Enemytrue2. TN X Man 18:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * The sound of quacking just overwhelmed me: a flock of single-purpose accounts. Indefs all around: sockpuppeteer has already been blocked for a week for socking on this precise issue, no sign of repentance or learning.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Pontificalibus
SPA making same edits as other banned socks. 1 2 -- Pontificalibus (talk) 10:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Blocked and tagged.  E lockid  ( Talk ) 11:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Pontificalibus
Idenitcal edits to previous banned socks: 1, 2. Unlike recent socks this appears to be a dormant account used to get around the semi-protection. -- Pontificalibus (talk) 08:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Tagged, blocked, marked for close.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)