Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jytdog/Archive

17 January 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

In the last twelve days I've been involved in a serious debate with the editor Alon12, he got desperate and now is using two accounts to gain numeric advantage. It becomes more obvious with each edit that he does. I started suspecting about this because despite that Alon12's first edit was near the end of december, he has a total knowledge of Wikipedia's noticeboards (his 8th edit was a DNR case and his 14th edit was a request for page protection ) and has a very advanced knowledge regarding citing studies and formating of sources. Now 12 days after the start of the discussion the user Jytdog appears and supports the same changes that the user Alon12 has been pushing with no result or backup from other involved editors, if you look at the discussions on which Jytdog has been involved the handling of sources, the editor's behavoir as well as the style of discussing is the same as Alon12's, this can be seen even in the talk page for the "Mexicans of Europan descent" article as only Alon12 and Jytdog bring reflists when citing text from the article, , while every other editor copies the sentence of the article followed by numbers within brakets like this[22]. However what made obvious that they are the same person is that he replied with the wrong account here, he wrote an entire new section with the style of Jytdog, not the style of Alon12: He made emphazis in various sentences using bold text, something that Alon12 never does and Jytdog does in several discussions, here for example and he have done it in this talk page too. Additionally through the discussion Jytdog have mentioned the concept of "primary sources" repeatedly while Alon12 has never mentioned it until he created the new section that I linked above, where he mentions it various times just like Jytdog does. Then he replies in the place of Alon12, and edits using the information and words that Alon12 used. As further behavoir-based evidence Jytdog have been considerably rude during the time he has been in the discussion, , until I told him that I know he is using a sockpuppet , after that he became extremely civil and nervous adding words like "thank you" at the end of every response ,. I searched "Jytdog" in google and there are various accusations of paid editing in and outside of Wikipedia, he is also accused of repeating the same things again and again until he frustrates his opponents in and outside of Wikipedia, this is what Alon12 has been doing all this time too. All this and other evidence, like that both editors are active around the same hours (here Alon12 created a case accusing me of edit warring when I only made two reverts within 10 hours  and this happened at the same hour that I was having the discussion with Jytdog, which is very early morning in the Americas' time, around 5:00 - 6:00 A.M.) makes obvious that Alon12 and Jytdog are the same person. I apologize for the big summary, but is evident that something big is going on here once you connect the dots. Aergas (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

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

I just became of aware of this, checking out contribs by my accuser to see what else he does in WP. I was not notified of this. Aergas is a fairly new user, having just opened an account last summer, and seems to be a WP:SPA working exclusively on a few articles concerning Mexico. The SOCK I am accused of operating, Alon12, has only existed since December, and is a SPA for the Mexicans of European descent article. Both of them are currently blocked for edit warring on that article. If you look at my contribs, you'll see that I have never edited anything related to Mexico nor ethnicity.

My attention was drawn to this article via the posting at ANI - I am participating in a different thread at ANI about topic banning a disruptive editor at organic food; you can see that I edited ANI at 15:05, 16 January 2015. I had checked back an hour or so later to see if there had been a response, and finding none had browsed the page and this dispute caught my eye and so I checked out the article, and found it to be pretty terrible. The "discussion" on the Talk page is also terrible - two people who don't understand how WP works arguing in really ugly ways. In any case my first edit on the article was at 16:23, 16 January 2015.

There is no merit to this case - it is just a typical new user who jumped into an argument before he understood how WP works, and is personalizing the dispute instead of dealing with the substance. The thing about me replying "in place" of Alon12 is especially goofy. Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I should add that I'd be happy to provide any verification of my identity that you like. Just let me know. (I've never been on the receiving end of one of these!) Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur with the comments of Jytdog. This allegation is absurd, and raises competency issues about the editor making the claim.  As Jytdog notes, Alon12 and Aergas are both blocked for two weeks for edit-warring at Mexicans of European descent.  It appears that Jytdog only went to that article because I mentioned the edit-warring at WP:ANI.   Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:BOOMERANG. I noticed this as I was about to file an unrelated SPI, and my jaw drops at how ridiculous it is. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is pretty wacky. Jytdog edits controversial articles on a wide range of topics on which a sockpuppet would come in handy in trying to win debates, and I've never seen this Alon identity before.  Hard for me to see this article as the special ocassion when he would pull an alter ego out of the woodwork.  In terms of boomerang, I think collective ridicule of the editor making this accusation would probably suffice.  Formerly 98 (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Both the SSP and the filer have earned blocks for edit-warring, and I concur with the other commenters that there seems to be no real basis for suspicion of sockpuppetry on Jytdog's part. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  17:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

06 April 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Every time Jytdog is brought up on AN/I this same user, Crit, always provides comments backing Jytdog up. (Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents, Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents) Additionally, during content disputes these two users always overlap (diffs to come) to support each other through reverts and talk page comments. User:Onthost (T C) 17:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC) User:Onthost (T C)  17:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC) Also the editor interaction tool supports this: []

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

User:Mike V, User:Renameduser024 and User:Onthost are the same person. QuackGuru ( talk ) 18:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Closing due to insufficient evidence. Mike V • Talk 18:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

User:AlmostFrancis started editing three weeks after Jytdog was indef blocked by ArbCom. It became clear very quickly that AlmostFrancis was not a new editor, with a clear and deep knowledge of policy. After a small number of innocuous edits in seemingly random articles they moved directly articles edited by Jytdog in Acupuncture and the Burzynski Clinic. They also seemingly started following Tornado Chaser, with whom Jytdog had been in a long running dispute, editing the seemingly obscure Rope worms article not long after Tornado Chaser started there, and following Tornado Chaser to Roxy the Dog's talk page, Texans for Vaccine Choice and Tornado Chaser's talk. The comment that made me think of Jytdog in particular was this one left at Middle 8's talk, which was very similar in tone to other comments left by Jytdog before they were blocked  The edits certainly aren't those of a new user whatever happens, but the focus on Tornado Chaser, timing, tone, and the interest in psudeoscience and medicine feels an awful lot like Jytdog. - Bilby (talk) 06:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC) Bilby (talk) 06:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Seriously??? -Roxy, the dog . wooF 07:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up Bilby. Ohh no wait, you didn't bother to let me know that you opened this.  Just so you know when you say that you are pleased no one believes you.AlmostFrancis (talk) 06:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Having separate information from other unrelated inquiries, simply put, it's not them. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 06:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm genuinely pleased to hear that. - Bilby (talk) 06:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

This is a new user that has some familiarity with the bowels of Wikipedia, focusing on the removal of WP:BLPs, but also on 'deleting' various journal article entries they deem unnotable, linking to WP:NOPAGE/WP:NOTCATALOG, and generally making/parroting the same arguments as User:Jytdog has in the past at Articles for deletion/Nova Religio. See here, here, and here amongst others (discussions that Riley0O0O0O was somehow aware existed). I cannot distinguish the behaviour of this user from Jytdog, who also was a prolific BLP fighter and vociferous in his opposition to the existence of journal articles, in any meaningful way.

I would not have reported normally, but Jytdog was banned under a cloud, and does not benefit from a WP:CLEANSTART. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * maybe it's 'premature' and I should have left the account to accumulate more edits first, but consider that it's an account that's less than a month old, with fewer than 100 edits, that's suddenly doing BLP enforcement and trying to delete journal articles, making the same arguments Jytdog made, who shows a deep familiarity with pages such as WP:IINFO/WP:NOTCATALOG. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed that it could very well be a sock of someone else. But it's a sock of someone, I'm sure of it. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Is this a joke filing? Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 100% serious. I had strong suspicions since 2-3 days ago but today's edits, e.g. and, all but confirm it. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:19, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. The likelihood of 5his being a real sock of JD is the same as the likelihood of a homeopathic preparation curing anything. Nil. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Other than having the same apparent interest in BLP articles and journals, are there any specific behavioral similarities that can be used to identify and connect these two accounts? Similar edit summary usage, grammar, formatting, verb use, anything that connects them in this manner? I agree and understand how seeing a user with similar interests would raise suspicion, but this alone can't be enough to assert with a high level of certainty that this user is a sock puppet of Jytdog, nor justify administrative action. We need to have evidence and similarities that can be pointed to with diffs and in-depth comparisons.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   16:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't gone far enough to figure out who this is a sock of, but looking at the things they've done in their first 114 edits:
 * Placing templates (very first edit)
 * Get into an edit war at Wouter Hanegraaff
 * Move pages
 * Open an AfD
 * Extensive use of edit comments
 * Cogent quoting of wiki-policies
 * This certainly pegs my sock-o-meter. If they're not a sock of Jytdog, then they're certainly somebody else who has extensive wiki experience and is being evasive about it.  How we deal with that within the constraints of our policies is another question.  -- RoySmith (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * There is insufficient evidence to connect this user with Jytdog. We are not going to deal here with whether this is a sock of "someone" because they appear to be experienced. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)