Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jw2035/Archive

Report date August 25 2009, 13:34 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

(Also has an inactive alternate account at User:Jw2034)


 * Evidence submitted by Sillyfolkboy

I made a checkuser request to User:YellowMonkey which suggested that Jw2035 has been using multiple accounts in order to revert my own constructive edits. Xxc2009 appears to have been created solely to revert my own edits (contribs). The user seems to have also accidentally reverted other users edits to articles I have edited, then reverted back once they realised it was not my edit.

Prior to this, following a brief dispute at Conviction of Michael Shields User:Jw2035 reverted a number of my good faith edits and then posted to my talk page suggesting that he would edit articles on my contributions list. Two weeks later, his related IP (129.11.76.230) made similar bare reverts, a which point the Xxc2009 account was created, making similar edits and even making the same edit to a page.

I also believe that Jw2035 has a history of sockpuppetry, engaging in vote stacking some months ago at Articles for deletion/The Quintuple. User:John Vandenberg warned Jw2035 that checkuser information suggested that he was behind an outburst of socks. He denied this, as the related IP is a large university network. This was believable, but one involved username (Xxm85064) seems similar to the above Xxc2009 username, which is highly likely to be his account.

Given the unusual crossover of article editing between Jw2035/34 and the IP (Scottish Government, Treble (association football), Director of football, Conviction of Michael Shields, specific years/editions of football competitions), it appears that a sizeable portion of the IP's edits in the past 12 months have been made by this user. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) Join WikiProject Athletics!  13:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Response to clerk note by MuZemike
 * I agree that there is no abusive use of Jw2034. I believe it is a legitimate alternate account (albeit one which Jw2035 no longer has access to) and added it only to demonstrate that similar edits have been consistently made by that user and that IP.

Response to comments by Jw2035
 * It is hardly unusual that a fan of Liverpool football club (pretty much declared on my talk page) is involved with the Treble and Michael Shields articles, these topics are related. I did find the Exergaming deletion nomination by checking Jw2035's contributions, but this was because I reverted a couple of his edits on articles I was already editing/watching for violating WP:NPOV and decided to see if there were more violations. Having made edits to nearly 7000 unique pages, with over 5000 articles on my watchlist, and a crossover of interests with Jw2035, the fact that we occasionally edit the same articles seems unsurprising. I have never edited Scottish Government or Director of football, the articles we have both edited are (almost exclusively) within the scope of Liverpool F.C. and multiple trophy win articles.


 * In fact, Jw2035 is the one who appears to have selectively reverted my edits without good reason. This edit to an obscure template in a topic area he had rarely edited in seems to have an edit summary directed at me. I have never accused this user of sockpuppetry in the past; I have merely echoed the concerns of John Vandenberg's previous warning about socks – I alerted this admin to this report myself because of the previous warning, so his appearance is neither coincidental nor conspiratorial. I am a highly collaborative user and suggestions that I have upset other users are simply untrue. This is evidenced by my numerous peer reviews, good article reviews (all without conflict) and my work with WikiProjects. Jw2035 is the only user with whom I have experienced conflict with in my time here. This fact, the IP crossover, the fact that Jw2035 reverted my athletics work without reason, and the fact Xxc2009 was created purely to revert my athletics work without reason seems to suggest only one thing. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) Join WikiProject Athletics!  02:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Response to Sillyfolkboy


 * I think it's fairly clear that - as you admit above - you've been selectively and maliciously reverting edits of mine, making groundless accusations of which this seems to be another and drawing the most tentative of conclusions. one minor edit to a poorly formatted template that you had heavily linked into areas I was editing now appears to be enough to accuse me of somehow spinning some elaborate web of deceipt just to undo YOUR (so much for highly collaborative...) work? please!


 * I've always justified my edits to this and other users and as I have stated below I feel this is simply a bad faith, tit-for-tat and malicious complaint and for the second time in only a few months. A casual look at the talk page of this user and the number of times the user page has been vandalised and deleted will tell all that needs to be told about upsetting other users.


 * I'd suggest that if this user can provide no real proof of a direct link between this supposed vandalism and my account Jw2035 (one has to wonder given how tentative thse allegations are sounding if these edits weren't done by the user in question under an alias) that this investigation should be closed. Because all his 'proof' at the moment seems to be is that i've been in conflict with him and that someone from an IP address that serves a large university and possibly another IP serving most of a city might somehow have done him some wrong. It sounds flimsy, it sounds malicious and it sounds extremely bad faith. Jw2035 (talk) 03:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * User:YellowMonkey has run a check user proving that you and Xxc2009 have used the same IP in the same time period. You unreasonably reverted my edits on obscure athletics articles, then your IP unreasonably reverted me on obscure athletics articles, then a new editor using your IP was created solely to revert my edits on obscure athletics articles. This is not flimsy in the slightest, it is abundantly clear what is going on, especially because no other editor has ever reverted such edits of mine in over a year of working on athletics articles. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) Join WikiProject Athletics!  13:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, the idea that I have maliciously reverted this user is unfounded. My reversions of his edits are met with consensus and other users have also reverted the same edit if restored.  Reversion of an edit that does not meet Wikipedia guidelines and does not have consensus is hardly one of bad intent. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) Join WikiProject Athletics!  14:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC


 * For all my edits, I've reverted always with reason - the one you mention was because i belived it added unreasonable detail to the page in question as I stated in the edit summary - not "unreasonably" according to this user's opinions. As from editing from the same IP, this is somewhat unsurprising given several thousand people are routed throught he same proxy server and share the same IP for edits - this user just doesnt seem to get this. zthis user has made a lot of edits to athletics articles, a number of which have been reverted and edited - are you going to accuse those users as well of being sockpuppets? with regards to the edits to Conviction of Michael Shields, these have been discussed by both myself and this user on its talk page. In addition, i've also reverted a lot of vandalism to this page. Absolutely malicious complaint, oppotunistic accusation and for the SECOND unproven time! 81.96.246.118 (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC) (as User:Jw2035, not logged in).


 * I find it somewhat inconceivable that you thought the edit to Ramil Guliyev was unnecessary. The article pertains to a junior athlete who runs the 200 metres race. The fully cited edit noted that he was the second fastest junior 200 metres runner ever. It is hard to believe that this revert was not one of bad faith, and was not aimed at disrupting my editing. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) Join WikiProject Athletics!  17:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Not this again! Bad and indeed faith complaint. I edit from a large university network with dynamic IP reassignment and from an ISP that routes much of it's traffic through a low number of proxy servers (again, without a static IP), with both in the same city. This is the SECOND time this user has made this allegation. Further, all allegations have been based on the flimsiest of evidence 'User name sounds the same' (surely amazingly common amongst sockpuppets?), 'from the same IP range' (that serves several 10s of thousands of people), etc...

I've had a number of conflits with this user. My public message to this user - although probably ill advised in this context! - was a friendly reminder that selective editing focussed at a particular user could consitute a personal attack. I had no desire to direcly accuse this user of such, nor make a personal attack of my own. If one was to check, I believe they would find this user inordinately reverts my (and probably others) edits on such diverse topics as Exergaming, [Scottish Government, Treble (association football), Director of football, Conviction of Michael Shields, etc... I do not believe such diverse reversion is just coincidence - the likelihood of two users similtaneously coming across the same topics repeatedly is somewhat low. My belief is that this user is out to personally and selectively revert edits and engineer allegations to discredit both me and my edits, which is very much against WP:PA.

I've no knowledge of these XX... accounts, but Jw2034 is my former username, which I gave up for a fresh start and no longer edit from, as is verifyable (i've not edited from this account since Dec 2008 and readily acknowledge this as my former one). I'd suggest, perhaps, that one of the other thousands of people in the university or several hundred thousand in the large city in which I live may well have two such similarly named accounts!

I'm not in the habit of vandalism, have never been blocked and only rarely warned in several hundred edits. I dont know what has happened here, but if my experience is anything to go by i'd be unsurprised if this user hasn't made a lot of people unhappy with their behaviour. Jw2035 (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Given this user admits in his chekcuser request I have zero proof that these two users are related and brings up a number of edit conflicts we've had, I've no reason to believe this is anything other than a totally malicious attack. I'm also extremely interested that User talk:John Vandenberg has been involved commenting with Sillyfolkboy in both of these allegations.

And if you're interested, my present IP is 129.11.77.198 and has been for some time. User:Jw2035 as 129.11.77.198 (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC). I believe '...the unusual crossover of article editing' isnt so unusual when you consider the bredth of topics edited from a large university! and i've no doubts that 'sizeable portion of the IP's edits in the past 12 months have been made by this user' is an unsurprising yet incorrect conclusion to draw given this aspect.

I can provide an outline of my previous disputes with Sillyfolkboy if necessary.

Special:Contributions/129.11.76.230 is a proxy server for Leeds University, so we should avoid blocking it; lots of good users and anon edits. definitely needs to be blocked, and any other accounts playing the same game need to go as well. and have both claimed IP 81.96.251.179 as their own. (and been caught in autoblocks to confirm this) I am concerned that Jw2034/5 may have been playing games, and this threat really doesnt help. p.s. I re-ran a check on 91.121.144.0/20, which is the OVH range, but the very minor problems on that range appear quite unrelated. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

While I admit a close connection to Sillyfolkboy, I can't help but express my incredulity that Jw2035 thinks that it's reasonably likely that someone from their university, who is entirely unconnected to him, opened an account (Xxc2009) to disrupt edits by an editor that Jw2035 is having some clear problems with. As I'm sure we all know, most disruptive edits are done by IP addresses rather than accounted users, why would this posited other person open an account? I'm perfectly willing to accept that it may not have been Jw2035 who set up that account and did the edits, but I refuse to believe that, at the very least, it's not a friend under his request or guidance. Fol de rol troll (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the contribs between User:Jw2034 and User:Jw2035, there is indeed no overlap between the two, at least from the logs I can look at. Hence, I do not see abusive use of acocunt as far as these two accounts are concerned. 63.131.38.13 (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * That comment was made me while logged out. MuZemike 20:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * Sockpuppets blocked indef; master given a week block. NW ( Talk ) 00:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)