Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Judo112/Archive

Report date July 3 2009, 11:55 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Iqinn

MarkusBJoke took part in about 15 Afd's since account creation. In all of them supporting Judo112's position. The votes are very often made in a close timeframe to Judo112 ,, , , ... Comparing the history of the two accounts, i would say they come from the same computer. MarkusBjokes's first edit after account creation was a supporting vote for Judo122 that made Judo122's position win, this behavior continues in an just closed Afd. For me it looks like one person is using two accounts. I put this first to ANI and was told to submit it here. Iqinn (talk) 11:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
 * I declare that i will in the future only use Judo112 as my account. Please block MarkusBJoke or do whatever you want. Everyone is entitled to one mistake. And as you can see my edits in general are very productive and hasnt hurt the Wikipedia project in any way,shape or form. cheers.--Judo112 (talk) 11:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * I'm pretty convinced by this. Notified the users so I can await their responses. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 10:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

Per the self-confession above, I have indefinitely blocked the sockpuppet. Thus any votes cast by these two accounts need to be re-evaluated as one person if necessary. As for the master, he has promised not to do it again, claiming no knowledge of our sockpuppet policy. As such I don't think any further action with regard to Judo112 is necessary. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 13:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Report date July 23 2009, 13:37 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

77.105.211.130 came to Wikipedia for one 50-minute burst of editing activity. Almost all of these edits were trivial, such as wikilinking one word, with a significant exception. At least 5 articles edited were also edited by Judo112, as evidenced here: It is this last comparison that is the most telling, as I believe that it indicates the motive for the alleged sockpuppet activity, that is, the opportunity to vote twice in a close AfD debate. WWGB (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by WWGB
 * compared with
 * compared with
 * compared with
 * compared with
 * compared with

This time i am innocent. People cant blame me everytime an editor is doing similar edits as i am. Thats not fair. Second i dont see that it is the same IP-adress. And i havent been online until tonight, and i would be the first to admit to any wrongdoing on Wikipedia as earlier expressed. That sockpuppet suspicioun note should be changed to a welcome to wikipedia tag. Or something, we cant vilianise everyone. Per the Good faith rule of Wikipedia:). Cheers.--Judo112 (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
 * I can also see a certain motive that the person dislikes that i said Keep in a certain Afd discussion recently. And i dont think its quite fair to accuse me of sockpuppetry just because of divided opinions. And the fact that there are more people with the same opinion as I. Always assume good faith.--Judo112 (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I won't claim to be an expert on SPI matters. However, I came across this SPI because I was watching the relevant AFD as I voted in it. I am not making a decision either way, but looking at the two diffs, beyond the fact that both IP and account !voted keep, I do not see similarities in style. Both cite sourcing as a reason for keeping the article, but then again sourcing as an issue is used in many other keep arguments on the AFD page. Otumba (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users
 * For reference for observers, when I was talking about the "two diffs", at the time only two diffs had been presented as evidence. These alone did not lead me to think the case had more than weak grounds.  However, the latest evidence does lead me to suspicion.  Thank you WWGB for the additional diffs. Otumba (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is very obvious to me that I.P. 77.105.211.130 made a series of edits to get an edit history before voting in the North Epping Murders AFD. However looking at Brolle (history), there are only three people who have edited this article, Judo112, the I.P. in question and a third I.P.. Do we really think that Judo112 is stupid enough to make sock puppetry edits to an article he created 15 hours before just to get an edit history for 77.105.211.130? . This case is too obvious. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * - self endorsed to confirm likely connection between IP and Judo112. Editor has been previously warned about the sock policy (including having an admitted sock blocked indefinitely). Editing overlap (seen here) includes pages the IP edited in common with both Judo112 and the indef'd sock from the prior case. Combined with an edit to the just created article Brolle, evidence of a link is pretty strong. Nathan  T 16:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * These appear to be ❌. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Per checkuser. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 22:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)