Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Larry jefferson/Archive

Evidence submitted by Syrthiss
Similar usernames (Xarry Jefferson, where X = B, L, A, M), group attack to insert nonsense into Hyposmocoma mediocris possibly as a breaching experiment. I've blocked B A and M, L has been blocked already a few days ago by Bwilkins. I'm not savvy enough to check the userlist to see if there are other variations that exist as sleepers.

Evidence submitted by Ben MacDui
Further nonsense at Hyposmocoma mediocris - see and this comment on a User's talk page. Ben  Mac  Dui  12:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Syrthiss (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC) for a sleeper check and possible IP block. Tim Song (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser comments: The following are ✅:

This group of users seems to be directly interested in another Wikipedia editor, whom they may know off-wiki.

Also :

However, is ❌ technically, although it is clear that he is familiar with certain related issues.

No other socks found. Underlying IPs can't be blocked as they are too dynamic. Risker (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The X Jefferson accounts are blocked indefinitely. Taking into account the discussion on unblock-en-l, where !JAMIEIMAJ! claimed that Larry jefferson was a compromised former account - only to proceed to make exactly the same edits LJ & co. made, I think despite the technical evidence there's socking going on. Accordingly, I have also blocked !JAMIEIMAJ! indefinitely as a sock. The article has been semi'd for two weeks. Tim Song (talk) 07:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by AgnosticPreachersKid
Obvious socks that are being used to harass User:Sco1996 on his talk page. I recommend a sleeper check. APK whisper in my ear  13:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

 * I indeffed Harry Crefferson already. Syrthiss (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by APK whisper in my ear  13:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

To see if there's any sleepers and to see if a rangeblock can happen. -- B s a d o w s k i 1   18:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

✅, no sleepers. Ranges are too broad to block. J.delanoy gabs adds 01:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * All accounts tagged -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 05:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Favonian
Usual pattern of vandalism against. Favonian (talk) 10:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Looks likely per WP:DUCK. was indef blocked as a VOA a couple minutes after this report anyway. Amalthea 11:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Syrthiss
was made by Sco1996, adding a Larry jefferson sock tag to an account blocked back in April. Sco1996 also made a vandalism article, which makes me reasonably suspicious of his intentions. Syrthiss (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Syrthiss (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

– This is odd. Sco1996 has been around before Larry jefferson, unless for some reason he is the sockmaster behind all the "jefferson" accounts. That or we're being played; in any case, CU should be able to help out here. –MuZemike 16:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, they have all edited from several of the same IPs, with the same UAs, but I'm not sure that Sco1196 is actually socking. Based on their edits, I think that the operators of these accounts are likely quite young, and they are probably editing from each others' houses. I remember a similar case where one of a group of friends was trying to sabotage the others' because he knew that they were using the same computers. This in particular does not make sense to me if all these accounts are the same person, but again, they could be just playing with our minds. J.delanoy gabs adds 16:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd tend to believe the first (group of friends), but also don't put the second (playing with our minds) out of the ballpark. Thanks, though.  That confirms my take on the situation of them all being associated somehow, now we just have to convince them to not disrupt the encyclopedia. Syrthiss (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Favonian
The usual animosity towards User:Sco1996, leaving unpleasant messages or pictures on his talk page. Also a similarity between the user names of the puppeteer and the first sockpuppet. Favonian (talk) 10:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked both. – B.hotep •talk• 10:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

All accounts have been already blocked and tagged. Nothing much else we can do here. Marking as closed.  E lockid  ( Talk ) 11:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Favonian
Usual junk at User talk:Sco1996 combined with weirdness at other talk pages, like mine. The socks have been blocked as they appeared, but I think we need to block some IP addresses and locate possible sleepers, as the problem seems to be recurring. Favonian (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
–MuZemike 20:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * All these socks are on the same IP/range as Sco1996 and it appears to be a school. I've softblocked the school for a month but somebody might want to speak with the Sco. The other range the socks are on is NTL and we aren't even going there. Brandon (talk) 11:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)