Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JuStar/Archive

Report date April 3 2009, 22:02 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets
 * Evidence submitted by &mdash;Kww(talk)
 * Evidence submitted by &mdash;Kww(talk)

LauraAndrade seems to be edit primarily/only to support JuStar in areas where he was unhappy about prevailing consensus. Note relative to this edit of JuStar's. Note the edit summaries on this LauraAndrade edit and this JuStar edit.

Note this reversion by LauraAndrade and compare it to this, this and this JuStar edit.

Note JuStar editing LauraAndrade's comment.

Note from back in December, 2008: this edit of JuStar's being so vigorously defended by LauraAndrade:. Oh, and surprise, surprise, a Portuguese IP leaps in to the fray:.

JuStar has a long history of edit-warring over charts, so if JuStar is socking at this time, it has probably happened before, making a sweep a good idea.


 * Just spotted Requests for checkuser/Case/JuStar myself. I agree no further Checkuser is necessary. Will someone just go ahead and block these accounts? The socking is clearly abusive.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I screwed up, and didn't notice the original checkuser, because the checkuser was under the checkuser system Requests for checkuser/Case/JuStar, and I forgot to double check it. I found it after the case was open, and commented inside the checkuser that that was the case. From there, it should have proceeded to blocking the accounts: I provided evidence of abusive socking, and a checkuser run only 60 days ago confirmed the two accounts as matched. I think the problem dates back to the original checkuser report ... when I look at that report, I can't determine why the accounts weren't blocked at that time.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Strongly oppose this case being closed without action
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Based on this sock investigation, the checkuser evidence and the behaviour of both accounts yesterday, I have taken action. IP address tagged as a sock (no block), JuStar blocked 72 hours, LauraAndrade blocked indefinitely. Notices left on both user talk pages. If anyone disagrees with this action please note here or contact me directly. Thanks. - eo (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

Requested by &mdash;Kww(talk) 22:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Checkuser confirmed that these accounts are sockpuppets in the prior case, no new check required at this time. Avruch  T 22:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Avruch  T 15:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)  nix eagle email me 02:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Please see comments in evidence section: I strongly oppose closing this report without action.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * Not closing just yet. Kww: Please clarify why the case shouldn't be closed, so the socks weren't blocked the first time, that could just be human error. Is there any reason why the case should stay open now they are blocked? Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 10:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Closing now is fine, as Ericorbit has indefinitely blocked the alternate, and made a short block on the primary. As the time it was marked for closure, no editors had been blocked, and it appeared that this was going to be archived without action.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Report date April 22 2009, 18:50 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

192.68.221.128 is an anonymous Portuguese IP address that primarily edits Mariah Carey articles. Its activity pattern was to edit heavily until December 2008, very lightly between December 2008 and April, 2009, and then heavily again. JuStar is a Portuguese editor that edited primarily Mariah Carey articles from October 2007 until being indefinitely blocked on April 4, 2009. The activity of the JuStar account picked up in December when the activity from 192.168.221.128 was reduced. LauraAndrade88, a confirmed sock of JuStar, edited only from December 2008 to April 2009, the interval where the IP went inactive, ceasing when that account was indefinitely blocked.
 * Evidence submitted by &mdash;Kww(talk)

Given this evidence, I'm in the 95% confidence range that this anonymous IP is simply JuStar back again, and would have no problems if someone went ahead and blocked on that basis. My 5% doubt is caused by the IP differences: the only IP addresses that I have ever confirmed to my satisfaction to be JuStar are all in 89.214.160.0/14. This IP address is still in Portugal, but a different ISP. I'd like a checkuser to verify if JuStar or LauraAndrade88 ever used a similar IP.


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by &mdash;Kww(talk) 18:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * I'm with you on this one, it's pretty clear that this IP is a continuation of the same pattern. Any admin should be able to block without CU confirmation on this one, which means a CU check is unnecessary. Note on the talkpage referring account creation should take care of the possibility that it is a strange coincidence. Declining this and returning it to the non-CU case queue. Nathan  T (formerly Avruch) 19:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * Accounts blocked and tagged. Archiving.  —  Jake   Wartenberg  19:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Report date April 23 2009, 17:31 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by &mdash;Kww(talk)

Too much of a WP:DUCK application to bother with checkuser. After getting an IP sock blocked yesterday, JuStar came out in force today. Three IP socks (two of which are in the same netblock as previously accused socks, all three of which are Portuguese) started in on Mariah Carey articles. After reverting those edits and tagging the IPs as socks, JoãoMiguel (created the day after JuStar's block) began today to restore all edits made by those IPs.


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users
 * Obvious block evasion, I'll check here again shortly - if another admin doesn't block these, I will. Perhaps another range block?  What would be the impact? - eo (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Black Kite blocked JoãoMiguel indefinitely while processing this edit warring report. Target articles semiprotected for two weeks as a result of this RFPP request. IPs should probably wait until after checkuser comes back.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Mayalld (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Endorse to check for possible range blocks and collateral damage check Mayalld (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Too much collateral damage for rangeblocks. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC) -
 * Conclusions
 * ✅ the following as JuStar:
 * please tag and archive ——  nix eagle email me 16:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Report date May 12 2009, 03:37 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Relatively new editor, with a near 100% editing overlap with JuStar/JuMiguelStar. The characters JMS and its relationship to JuMiguelStar is another nail in the coffin.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Kww

Further evidence: and  blocked on April 26, JMSC88 began editing on April 28.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

VIP21 should probably be looked into as well. Created hours after JMSC88 was tagged. —  Σ xplicit  19:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

Requested by &mdash;Kww(talk) 03:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * - To check newly listed account . Tiptoety  talk 20:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * From a purely technical standpoint, match is /. – Luna Santin  (talk) 06:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * indef blocked and tagged. Tiptoety  talk 20:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * that JMSC88 == VIP21. I didn't check them against JuStar. -- Luk  talk 15:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Blocked and tagged. I tagged VIP21 as a sockpuppet of JMSC88. Although JMSC88 is tagged as a sockpuppet of JuStar, the checkuser template would be misleading if it were to say VIP21 was checked and confirmed to be JuStar. Seems the safest thing to do. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 15:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Report date May 19 2009, 14:27 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Not only does he follow JuStar's editing patterns, he isn't very creative with usernames.
 * Evidence submitted by Kww


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions

WP:DUCK. Done. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 14:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Report date May 28 2009, 15:44 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Others believe ChristopherMix this to be a sock of Petergriffin9901, per this comment. I disagree, and believe it to be JuStar.
 * Evidence submitted by Kww

The last checkuser-confirmed socks of JuStar were and, who were blocked on May 12. ChristopherMix was created the next day, and began to edit Mariah Carey articles immediately: this is where JuStar usually causes trouble. ChristopherMix has been trouble, reverting valid removals of material and removing AFD notices. ChristopherMix also edits horror articles, such as [My Bloody Valentine], where JMSC88 was interested in similarly bad horror films such as [The Ruins (film)].

Given the difficulty of sorting Petergriffin9901 socks from JuStar socks (witness and, which turned out to be Petergriffin9901 pretending to be JuStar), I think a checkuser is necessary to determine which hand this sock resides on. A sweep wouldn't hurt, either: two weeks without blocking a JuStar sock is an unusually long time, which means there's probably a sleeper or two out there.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Very similar arguments apply to JornalistaLusitano: created on May 12, Portuguese sounding name, which would be consistent with JuStar, restoring edits by previous socks on Mariah Carey articles.
 * Ooh, look: My Bloody Valentine 3D is in both editors' edit histories. Isn't that interesting?&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users
 * As per User:Kww, it's just a matter of sorting out whose sock it is, because both master accounts have similar editing histories (re: Mariah Carey articles), but I'm leaning towards JuStar.... Not only because of Kww's arguments (which are solid), but also because he immediately labelled Max24's edits as "vandalism", which he tends to do when edits go against his/her wishes. SKS (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * JuStar refuses to acknowledge the suggestion to use the "unblock" request on the original account (see User talk:JustarR24). Until then, expect socks to continue multiplying.  Strongly suggest a sweep; these latest User contributions basically give it away. - eo (talk) 15:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested by &mdash;Kww(talk) 15:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * For a sweep. I'm less inclined to endorse just to see who it is (even though I like to categorize for records), but we don't do that.  Sy  n 21:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

✅, JuStar = ChristopherMix = JornalistaLusitano also. In terms of range-block potential, the range is very broad and there would be collateral damage. -- Versa geek  22:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions


 * All socks blocked and tagged. ~ fl 09:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)