Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Subwayjack/Archive

30 March 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Based on behavioral evidence, I believe that 2001:EE6A, and the other various listed IPs, are in fact Subwayjack, a user whom I believe was banned due to their disruptive editing on Charles Whitman some time ago. A look back in the talk archives shows that Victor9876, a sockpuppet of Subwayjack's proposed the removal of content about a victim named David Gunby claiming that the coroner's ruling of homicide was "suspicious". This same proposal regarding the exact same content was made by 2001:EE6A last month with a bit more detail about why the ruling is supposedly suspicious. Another IP user, 2001:17e3, also attempted to remove the same content. There's also a fixation about removing a book being used as a source in the article. The book is by Gary Lavergne which both the IP and Subwayjack's puppets have tried to deem "unreliable" because the author claims the shootings were the worst in history (or something to that effect). Victor9876 attempted to use this supposed error as proof that the entire book should be dismissed as unreliable and posted about it on the author's article talk page here. The IP also posted a similar argument (albeit now with a new plagiarism accusation) on the Whitman page. Both comments refer to the Bath school disaster (and link Andrew Kehoe in their comment) in what I presume is an effort to show that Lavergne is wrong about this "worst ever" claim thus invalidating the entire book. In reality, the book is fine but there seems to be a personal grudge that the user has about Lavergne. The latest battle seems to be about the content regarding the formation of SWAT. 76.112.160.45 has attempted to remove the content with claims that the incident had nothing do to with its formation as has 2001:ee6a. Also note the same usage of the phrase "mental masturbation" in this talk page post dated 11 March 2013 by the IP to one that Victor9876 made on 17 February 2009. Also, the IP user has also made claims that (s)he interviewed Houston McCoy and other people involved in the case here, the same claims which were made by Victor in this section (posted 16:11, 21 October 2008). Finally, this talk page post by Jimbo indicates that Subwayjack/Victor is a man named John Moore who admits to having a COI regarding people involved in the Whitman incident. I don't know the backstory but it's obvious Subwayjack/Victor was banned for disrupting Wikipedia with their own agenda and repeated attempts to insert his own OR into articles. 2001:ee6a has linked to a site promoting an e-book (or project, no idea really as I didn't read about it) on User:Ylee's talk page and User:Kieronoldham's talk page (see Wikitable on Whitman section) where he admits that Kieronoldham's "summation and insight" that the book/project is his is "correct". The project page was seemingly set up by Moore for donations and obviously belongs to him which he admits. The same usage of phrases/arguments, similar agenda to get content/source they don't like removed, obvious COI and efforts to appear that they're engaging in discussion when the user disregards consensus and/or other editors' concerns with their edits along with the same self identifying details leads me to believe this is Subwayjack/Victor/etc. Since this has been going on for years with no end in sight, I propose the socks be tagged and blocked and the article get semi protection for a lengthy period of time.  Pinkadelica ♣  22:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Because of this [],Pinkadelica is in violation of 1. Not notifying this IP user of an actual investigation and 2. WP:OUTING and 3. WP:PRIVACY.

I am asking for an administrator, to review these allegations, and appropriate actions be imposed.2001:558:6007:27:7992:7DA3:D702:EE6A (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * After posting the above message here, to my talk page and to Talk:Charles Whitman, the above user posted this lovely rant on my talk page where he admits to his identity.  Pinkadelica ♣  18:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - CU will not connect IPs to usernames except in cases of extreme abuse. Rschen7754 05:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the extreme delay, Pinkadelica -- I'm guessing the wall of text made this case less attractive than others. And for the record, I myself don't necessarily require extreme abuse, but here all the socks are really quite old, CU couldn't help here. Anyhow, IP admits to being banned, hasn't edited for close to two weeks but it's still blocked now for a bit -- let us know if he comes back. Amalthea  19:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)