Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Js82/Archive

06 August 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

this edit, this edit, and this edit (among several by this ip). Also, see the discussion on the talk page, wherein at least 2 of those ip's, as well as the registered user all speak in the same voice.  Onel 5969  TT me 18:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * After responding to this user on the talk page, he made another comment, then re-added his edits, this time simply citing some of the already existing cites, which do not include his additions, in an attempt to mask his uncited contributions. I know we're supposed to AGF, but this is a pretty transparent attempt. Compare this sequence of edits, and the first 2 citations, with the version prior to their edits, where these citations already exist (#1 and #7).  Onel 5969  TT me 00:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Comment: I'm one of editor involved in that discussion. Actually, that person himself accepting that he is commenting from different IPs, when his one of IP was blocked he came with an account. We are discussing Sardarji joke issue since many days, and he is continuing his discussion sometimes with different IPs or sometimes with his account. We are 3-4 people discussing with him since many days including one admin Utcursh and we all know since many days that its same person. We were just ignoring that fact because of his sentiments regarding this issue. He is probably "Sardar" and he want some correction in article Sardarji joke which is an original research and unsourced. -- Human 3015   Send WikiLove   18:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * There's no doubt the IPs and user are the same. I'd blocked one of the IPs and the user for edit warring. The user has also been warned against further disruption, a block for that whether it's IP or user should be enough. I don't think there's any value for a CU here as these are just IP addresses, two of which are confirmed by the user already. The third 86 ip is not him unless that's a proxy/tor but it's BT dynamic. I think the CU request could be closed. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  18:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Admin action needed - Please, block the first two IPs for a week. I left a warning at Js82's talk page. That should be enough.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  12:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The IPs haven't edited since August 6. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

06 November 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Js8, an editor whose primary editing interest is in Sikhism related articles, was banned from Indian religion articles by  here and immediately stopped editing. A few days later, Docxx appeared with the same interest and pushing the same ideas about Sikhism using the same sources (cf., and ). regentspark (comment) 14:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * It does look like it to me, but there's an off chance that it's someone else "called in" (happens on Indian caste/regligion articles). I had placed a WP:AE topic ban on Js82 and he disappeared during his WP:ARCA appeal and this account was created right after that. There are also a couple of IPs in the archive that were self-confirmed in the past (ignore the 86 one, that's not him), and one of which I had blocked earlier. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  15:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

- As I had stated in my first comment on Wikipedia at Sikhism talk page, there is no evidence really I can share here to "fight my case". The IPs between our accounts are shared and the topics of interest are shared (although there is no "shared agenda"). '''I do not understand the checkuser policy of Wikipedia, but it did seem to indicate potential privacy concerns. To prevent any breach of my privacy, I request that no checkuser be conducted. I would take that and get out of here (if that is the required)'''. Docxx (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Bishonen, I would respond to you in a while.

I noticed a complete nonsense comment from an editor here, which has now been removed. Is this the quality of seasoned editors here ? The user must be banned just for that act. Who in their senses would actually want to contribute to this place. Docxx (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Docxx, my apologies for that comment. Sorry.-- Human 3015   TALK   19:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Docxx, it sounds to me like you're admitting you're Js82's sock, but would rather not have a CheckUser look, because you're worried about your privacy. Is that it? If you're not the same person, please explain how you can possibly know anything about Js82's IP. I mean, you state that "The IPs between our accounts are shared". How do you know that? Please respond above with a convincing explanation, or I will in fact block you as a sock. To the SPI clerk: I don't actually think a CheckUser is needed here, especially since the user seems to fear it. (Incidentally, Docxx, you don't in fact need to worry about a CheckUser breaching your privacy in any way, as CheckUsers are under very strict instructions not to share any private information, such as what IP an account is using.) Bishonen &#124; talk 17:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC).
 * The two accounts are ✅. I fail to see how a block implicates privacy concerns, but the user can take up that issue, if they wish, through other channels. Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

08 November 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Here we go again: same issue, new editor diff diff, who already knows what WP:BRD and what an anti-vandal bot is. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   08:47, 8 November 2015 (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

 * - Registered after previous sock was blocked, removes large amount of text from Sikhism like previous sock and master .  Vanjagenije  (talk)  10:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

17 November 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

diff: same "arguments" as before. See archive. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   04:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' This is completely frivolous. When I participate in a debate, I will make points which agree or disagree with some of the preceding discussion. That means a Sockpuppet ? Is this a joke ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.86.112 (talk • contribs)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Leaving 2607 now as it's a mobile IP and it was a single edit. 67 is clearly Js82 and I've blocked the IP. Closing now. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  12:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

04 March 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

After @Js82 working from many IP was blocked, @Docxx appeared which too was blocked, followed by @Wollone who too was blocked. Now @Pinsi281 has appeared, claiming he/she knows all the wikipedia policies, with "And STOP QUOTING WP:xxx, WP:yyy, I know them."

The relatively new account opened in January is editing the same article in the same way, editing the same section of the same Sikhism article, and edit warring 1, 2, 3, 4 the same way as previous already-blocked accounts and IPs did. @Pinsi281 is also personally attacking admins and editors, calling latter "liars" in the same way blocked @Js82-accounts-or-IPs did. WP:DUCK?

The IPs are listed as they are close to IPs previously linked to @Js82 etc. The @Jujhar.pannu is listed because of similar co-edits and mentions by @Pinsi281 here and here, and co-edit-warring here, here.

FWIW, admin @RegentsPark noted on March 3 2016, here that SPI "evidence looks reasonable". made the same observation on @Pinsi281 here and here a little while ago on the talk page of Sikhism. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

I completely oppose this SPI. Wikipedia cannot operate on the whims and fancies of Sarah Welch. This SPI, opened by Sarah Welch, who has apparently been edit warring on the Sikhism page for months (see the message from earlier today (this diff) on her talk page by an independent editor Deluded Fan) is completely in "bad faith" and has no justification at all. All the evidence being provided is nothing but childish.

I started participating on the Sikhism page in January when I saw some constructive edits from Jujhar Pannu, and wanted to extend my support to those. These were against Sarah Welch's stated position in the past (she edit warred with Jujhar Pannu as well), and now this charge against me to get me banned. This is no grounds for conducting an SPI on me. I hope justice would be served and this SPI be dismissed without any further action.

This is all frivolous childish evidence. All the "in the same way, editing the same section of the same Sikhism article" has zero content actually, if you look into it. There is no similarity in the edits I made and any prior edits being claimed. Absolutely zero similarity. And in all humility, 2-3 months of time is enough for me to know the basic WP policies to ask Sarah Welch to stop repeatedly throwing them at my face. And I asked Sarah Welch to stop lying because she was lying. What else should I have said ? I never "attacked" any Admin, this is just another lie from her. What a farce of an "evidence".

It is amazing she has now even dragged Jujhar Pannu into this. Just goes to show what I have stated above. Jujhar Pannu added sources she does not want added, so she edit warred repeatedly with him and with me (and has been doing so with several editors for the last several months, as even Deluded Fan has stated on her own talk page earlier today here). Left with nowhere to go, she has now gone on to raise frivolous SPIs against established and long-term editors such as Jujhar Pannu as well. Please disregard and move on. Pinsi281 (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * @Pinsi281: You are not 2-3 months old account. Your account is less than 2 months old, with your first edit on January 8 2016. To quote, @Joshua Jonathan note on you, on February 21 2016..... "STOP LYING. And STOP QUOTING WP:xxx, WP:yyy, I know them." Same capitals, same text. And remarkable, that a six week old account, that made a bare 42 edits, knows those policies. More here Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The version to which I responded below, something @Pinsi deleted

@Pinsi281: Please do not delete my comments/replies/additional evidence as you did here, or change your comments if I have replied to you, on this case file page. That is a violation of editing guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't edit my comments. I did not even see you had commented (since it happened in close succession), so it was taken out inadvertently. I have left it in here. Now don't start another one of your wars here, of all places, for heaven's sake.

As for the "evidence", another childish remark from the editor. So my account is as old as the day I make my first edit ? Just think again.

Please disregard this frivolous attempt from Sarah Welch to malign and attack me in "bad faith" and move on. And to repeat, yes, I am smart enough to learn the basic WP policies in a week, and we are talking months here. And I am free to ask you to stop quoting WP:xxx WP:yyy in my face in every message, as you have been doing. This comment made by me is your "evidence" for SPI ? Just stop.

Pinsi281 (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Adding to the list as well. The account seems to always crop up at the "right" time.    Endorse current evidence and a check for sleepers. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This is getting insane. No way this SPI deserves to go any further. There is simply no evidence. Please dismiss already. Pinsi281 (talk) 04:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Adding @172.56.*.*, since @Js82 used this IP before and the IP 172.56.38.226 has been active in January 2016 in Sikh articles, such as Guru Gobind Singh. Evidence: here; Similarly IP 172.56.39.72 has been active Guru Tegh Bahadur, Evidence: here. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Adding @172.58.104.72, Evidence: here. Same Sikhism-related article, same effort in January 2016 that added blogs/website content, deleted WP:RS and added "prophet-master" as @Js82 did. FWIW, @Pinsi281 has been asking for something similar in the Sikhism article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Here are my comments from Talk:Sikhism:
 * Time for another SPI?  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In concreto: "STOP LYING. And STOP QUOTING WP:xxx, WP:yyy, I know them." Same capitals, same text. And remarkable, that a six week old account, that made a bare 42 edits, knows those policies. See also Special:Contributions/2607:FB90:2272:1E63:0:2E:4968:7801. Both editors seem to catch very little sleep, editing at all time-slots over the week Js82 Pinsi281. Actually, now that I think about it: regentspark, I think that I've seen enough here.   Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   13:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   05:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Childish and frivolous "evidence" of Joshua Jonathan was already included by her accomplice Sarah Welch. No need to respond again and waste my time. As for Sarah Welch, it is not even clear any longer what she is doing. Just randomly throwing up more and more IPs, with no relation to me whatsoever. Just insane. Pinsi281 (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The following accounts are ✅, blocked and tagged:
 * Jujhar.pannu and DeludedFan are ❌ to each other and the master. The IPs are stale. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Jujhar.pannu and DeludedFan are ❌ to each other and the master. The IPs are stale. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Jujhar.pannu and DeludedFan are ❌ to each other and the master. The IPs are stale. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Jujhar.pannu and DeludedFan are ❌ to each other and the master. The IPs are stale. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

12 March 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kigman_fs the same behaviour again. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   08:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Repeat case of WP:MEAT and WP:DUCK. Again Sikhism-related section/article. Brand new account, already knows the wikipedia rules, same edit warring, same snide remarks, same disruption. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
✅, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

16 March 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Again Talk:Sikhism: "when you are the one who made controversial forum-y claims in the first place" diff. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   05:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * clarification: continues attacks on Ms Sarah Welch, for example here and here.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   22:01, 16 March 2016 (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

 * - In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
 * 1) At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
 * 2) At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
 * 3) In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  18:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * - Please, compare those two accounts, diffs are provided.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * is ✅ and blocked, along with the sleeper accounts and .-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  17:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Now tagged. Closing.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

29 March 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

See Talk:Sikhism Another long rant. See also this comment by Kautilya3. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   05:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Indeed, Js82 keeps coming back every other week after getting blocked each time. Looks like a WP:DUCK to me. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This is hilarious. I have even made a reddit about this page. My writing style is completely different. And instead of arguing with my logic you accuse you me of going on a rant and being a sock puppet? Surely it's not impossible to suggest an article on religion needs citations from the religion's holy text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrSangh (talk • contribs) 14:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, why am I being called a Sockpuppet for trying to add more sources? Are you happy with the current state of the Sikhism page when in fact it does not even cite the holy text? You can cite a person's interpretation of holy text and then call that interpretation religion.


 * Feel free to look up my handle on twitter and reddit (reddit usn: lulzcakes). I have proof of being me dating back over 6 years. You'll need more proof than being petty as you are and saying I'm trying to start a rant.


 * MrSangh (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Similarities in argumentation style, and perhaps the biggest giveaway is the focus on Sikhism, similar to previous socks. Example diffs include against previous socks  and, though many more exist. Requesting CU to confirm and to check for sleepers. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 03:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * MrSangh is .--Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked on possible + behavioral evidence. --regentspark (comment) 17:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Tagged and closing. Mike V • Talk 17:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

See below. Bbb23 (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

BBB23, yes it was me. If you would like to block, please go ahead. I really have no way to explain this, in a manner which would make much sense. Only thing you can note, which I'm sure you already did, is that I have abandoned those accounts since I decided to return and request an unblock of my original Js82 account. Some of the people (esp. RegentsPark) here may feel that I have let them down by not disclosing this at the time of requesting unblock, and for that, I am really sorry. I have broken their trust. Js82 (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * There is a discussion about the master at WP:AE. I was pinged there by, which prompted me to look at the history of Js82, which, honestly, I hadn't been paying attention to. I noticed that the last check of the master was done in 2016 by before she unblocked the master per the standard offer. IMO, someone (perhaps me) should have run another check before the master was unblocked in February 2018. For all those reasons I ran a check. I found technical and, in my view, strong behavioral evidence that the following accounts are very :
 * The only reason the accounts are not technically confirmed is because Js82 is editing from corporate proxies, which means the user agent may not be reliable. I would like input from others about the behavioral similarities. Unless I hear something that convinces me otherwise, I will reblock the master and block the three socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I was going to comment that Nirbhauk and Amlmw are beyond doubt the same while Bdss is also very similar, but that's not needed because of the self-confirmation above, obviously the unblock was an error given the deception, I'm going to block now . &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  23:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC) Struck through part that is no longer necessary as Bbb23 has already taken action. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  23:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Per the evidence and Js82's admission, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The only reason the accounts are not technically confirmed is because Js82 is editing from corporate proxies, which means the user agent may not be reliable. I would like input from others about the behavioral similarities. Unless I hear something that convinces me otherwise, I will reblock the master and block the three socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I was going to comment that Nirbhauk and Amlmw are beyond doubt the same while Bdss is also very similar, but that's not needed because of the self-confirmation above, obviously the unblock was an error given the deception, I'm going to block now . &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  23:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC) Struck through part that is no longer necessary as Bbb23 has already taken action. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  23:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Per the evidence and Js82's admission, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)