Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/YourLord/Archive

User:YourLord

 * Tiptoety talk 20:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Report date January 22 2009, 18:53 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets:

A lot of similarity between these accounts, including their editing methods. All have attemped to create the same sorts of cats as both named socks such as fictional tyrantsCategories for discussion/Log/2008 December 11, and categories for Skulduggery Pleasant. He also has seemed to take over the editing of many of the same articles the other socks concentrated on, including those related to Skulduggery Pleasant, Megalomania (including creating List of megalomaniacs which has since been deleted), The 10th Kingdom, Morgoth, Lord Voldemort, various "super villain" type characters, etc, and doing the same kinds of editing on both. The writing style in talk pages and edit summaries also is similar in nature.
 * Evidence submitted by -- Collectonian  (talk Â· contribs)

The SSP report for Illustrious One started February 23, 2008 and he was blocked the same day. Jupiter_Optimus_Maximus created his account on the 27th. Some of his remarks regarding sockpuppetry also seem a bit odd, such as in his edit summary here. It is known that YourLord edited under numerous IP socks before editing under Illustrious_One and I believe the initial report gives some ranges. They may have changed in the last year, but what started as a curiosity about his rather odd statement has led me to believe that this is another sock of YourLord who is quietly continuing the same sorts of editing behavior.

Related pages:
 * Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of YourLord
 * Suspected sock puppets/YourLord
 * Suspected sock puppets/YourLord (2nd)
 * Suspected sock puppets/YourLord (3rd)

More similarities, in their starting user pages  (interesting that a "new" user with a newly registered account immediately talks about trying to defeat sockpuppetry though he now says its because he edited as an anon for awhile first)

And their starting talk pages.   

As per the SSP suggestions, I asked him directly if he was related after the sock comments, but found his answer to be less than confidence inspiring and decided to file a report for further investigation. -- Collectonian  (talk Â· contribs) 18:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Added Learner001 as another possible new sock poising to take his place. Different starting style, but with report above seems logical and initial start page has similar wording/expresses similar ideas to those frequently posited by the same person. This new account suddenly "defending" Jupiter and making personal attacks against IllaZillaâ, whom Jupiter has been in disagreement with.. Learner001 is also self-identified as using IP 98.243.196.117.


 * Comments by accused parties: I don't think I even need to defend myself. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I notice that a well meaning user has endorsed a checkuser at the top of the page. May I ask what a checkuser is? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users
 * Indeed, the resemblance is uncanny. The two do have similar editing styles, not to mention some of the pages both have edited are the same subjects. "Dark Lord" being one of them. Lord Sesshomaru (talk â¢ edits) 18:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I too see many similarities in editing style/behavior, and activity on the same pages/subjects. Whether they are all the same person, I don't know...I wasn't familiar with Your Lord though the name and userpage certainly fit JOM's MO. Interested in seeing what a checkuser turns up. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Two quick thoughts: 1) I would hate to see some crucified only on a "likely"; 2) in an instance like this, i.e. where the block for sockpuppetry was back in 2007, i.e. two years ago, and Jupiter Optimus Maximus does have some constructive edits, should we give him another chance so long as no ongoing sockpuppetry is occuring, i.e. given the precedents of User:WillOakland, User:Jack Merridew, etc. (I can think of several other instances off hand, but don't want to get carried away)? Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * is ❌. that  =, same IP overlap. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 00:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * indef blocked and tagged. Tiptoety  talk 00:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Tiptoety talk 00:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Report date April 16 2009, 18:34 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by jc37


 * Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of YourLord

See also Sockpuppet investigations/YourLord/Archive. You'll have to look at the talk page history of User talk:Jupiter Optimus Maximus for more information (including their admission of puppetry).

See also the redlinked contributors here for some other probable socks. (Though they may at this time be stale.) - jc37 18:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users
 * I've dealt with Jupiter Optimus Maximus extensively, and reviewed his edit history both as JOM & as YourLord (and Illustrious One & his various IPs) fairly thoroughly. Though Gyrobo's edits seem to be of a similar nature, they don't seem to be in the same articles or article families (though they are in the same general topic area...fictional characters). The time frame of activity would also seem to overlap with some of YourLord/Illustrious One/JOM's other socks. He does have a history of gaming the system, though, and when his JOM account was revealed as a sock he did openly state that he would just continue editing under other accounts & IPs. So I wouldn't be terribly surprised if Gyrobo did turn out to be another sock, though on first glance I wouldn't immediatly suspect it. I'd be interested to see what a checkuser turns up, as many of YourLord's IPs have been identified already & are all in close range. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested by jc37 18:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Checkuser requires detailed evidence of socking, not "look at the history" Mayalld (talk) 09:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Endorsed based on new evidence. Nathan  T (formerly Avruch) 00:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Nothing jumps out at me as connecting Jupiter to Gyrobo (or Gyrobo to YourLord). Jupiter is already indef'd as a sock. Do you have some specific connecting evidence? Nathan  T (formerly Avruch) 18:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, looking at both editor histories. The one I note above, for example. This was a category that no one else felt was appropriate, and Jupiter recreated it. You'll have to look through Jupiter's talk page edit history, because the user had a history of blanking things from it. And on their userpage, they noted how they were totally opposed to rules on WP:OR, etc. (Hence why they had no problem constantly re-creating things deleted by XfD.)
 * They also were known to say "goodbye" when they felt they had another sock established. (As Jupiter has done now.)
 * The person has now been blocked several times, and is a known sockpuppeteer. And the edits of gyro would seem to match Jupiter's rather closely.
 * I'm hesitant to point to specific edits to other specific pages, since that could minimise the ability to discern in the future, since the user is known to game the system.
 * Perhaps a comparison of this to this, this and this might help clarify? - jc37 22:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In the absence of the required evidence, I've declined Checkuser. I'm afraid that CU absolutely requires specific evidence. I note the reason for being reluctant to supply diffs, but they are necessary if we are to properly investigate allegations. Mayalld (talk) 09:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you look at the links provided? - jc37 04:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just left a note on your talk page. I just realised that as you're not an admin, you couldn't look at the links provided. - jc37 04:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at the deleted contributions, I think there is a strong possibility of sockpuppetry. I'd like a second opinion before I block. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 22:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is not much recent misbehavior by User:Gyrorobo, at least in 2009. I do note that it is curious that both Jupiter Optimus Maximus and Gyrorobo edited the two deleted categories and . If Jc37 could show Jupiter and Gyrorobo trying to make the identical edit, even on a deleted file, the case would be stronger. I do note that there is an extensive list of IPs provided in Suspected sock puppets/YourLord. If a checkuser could be justified then the activities of Gyrorobo could be checked against YourLord's SSP case. Under the recent, higher standards for use of checkuser I think we may not be there yet. Maybe jc37 could email some diffs to Mayalid if he has them? EdJohnston (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This, for example? - jc37 23:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll bite. This shows Gyrorobo re-creating a deleted category in September, 2008. Same category was previously created by in January, 2008. As it happens, Illustrious One is a sock of YourLord. This should be enough for a checkuser, in my opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Per above. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 23:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * ❌. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 18:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Report date May 28 2009, 23:21 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

User:Dominus Noster bears an uncanny resemblance to blocked user YourLord, aka Illustrious One, aka Jupiter Optimus Maximus (as I know YourLord primarily as Jupiter Optimus Maximus, I will refer to him by the abbreviation "JOM" below): Before opening this investigation I asked for some second opinions. Tiptoety, Collectonian, and Sesshomaru all agreed that there was enough evidence to warrant a SPI. Collectonian remarked that "His recreating that deleted list sends up a huge flag in my view. I think a SPI would be good. The name and edit summaries are signature YourLord/JOM as well. His note on your page very much mirrors his comments in the last SPI" (referring to the similarity between this comment and this one). I agree; not only are the usernames of a similar nature, but the two accounts' comments and edit summaries are of a similar tone as well.
 * Evidence submitted by IllaZilla
 * The editing patterns are incredibly similar. JOM's consistent behavior pattern, and reason for blocking, involved adding original research to articles about fictional characters, edit-warring over related "fictional foo / foo in fiction" categories, and recreating these categories after they were deleted (for example, Category:Fictional narcissists, Category:Fictional tyrants, Category:Fictional characters with mental illness, etc.). His original research generally consisted of unreferenced psychoanalysis of these characters, picking apart their personalities and diagnosing them with various real-world mental illnesses. Dominus Noster's patterns are quite similar, as evidenced by his contribution history. See for example, , ,.
 * One of Dominus Noster's earliest contributions was to re-create the previously deleted List of fictional narcissists (old AfD). The characters he chose to populate it with include many articles which I quickly recognized as some of JOM's most frequented (Azkadellia, Cutler Beckett, Judge Claude Frollo, Jafar, Opal Koboi, Master (Doctor Who), Queen Narissa, Lord Voldemort, Christine White, etc.). Speaking from experience dealing with JOM, these are exactly the same articles the he used to edit-war on over the inclusion of Category:Fictional narcissists and other categories, and the first I would expect to see him come back to under a new sock (his "top 10", if you will).
 * Dominus Noster identifies as being 18 and being from Chester, England. JOM identified as being 17 (last year), and all of his previous IPs trace to the same general area (Manchester, Liverpool, & Chester, which are adjacent to each other). Dominus Noster uncannily knew that JOM had identified as being 17, even though I can't myself recall where exactly JOM had mentioned it (it's not in the edit history of JOM's userpage, so it must have been in one of our past conversations; I'd have had to go digging way back into JOM's contribs to find it, so it's quite suspicious to me that Dominus Noster would be able to pull that information seemingly out of thin air).

In conclusion, I am stronly suspicious that Dominus Noster is YourLord/Illustrious One/Jupiter Optimus Maximus back under yet another account. His editing patterns, fields of interest, and the nature of his contributions are uncannily similar, and he self-identifies as being of the same age and from the same locale. As other editors have expressed agreement with these suspicions, I believe an investigation is in order. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Additional comment: Suspiciously, the List of fictional narcissists was originally created by JOM JOM expressed an intent to recreate the deleted List of fictional narcissists last year. This is getting beyond coincidental. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * He seemed to think better of it, as the original list was created long before. --Dominus Noster (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Curiously, you say below that you were "unaware of this while in the process of recreating said article". However, on Wikipedia whenever you are creating an article that was previously deleted, a large red box appears above the edit window declaring that "you are recreating a page that was deleted" and giving you links to the deletion logs and AfDs. How, then, could you be unaware that you were recreating a previously deleted article? --IllaZilla (talk) 00:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * And I suppose the fact that "Dominus Noster" translates to "Our Lord" is entirely coincidental as well. You know, the same connotation as "YourLord", "Illustrious One", and "Jupiter Optimus Maximus" (highest of the Roman gods...and the same Latin origin too). Once again your ego reveals the man behind the curtain. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I'll admit that we are similar but with regard to psychoanalysis of fictional characters, that habit is hardly unique to myself and JOM. People were psychoanalysing fictional characters before Jupiter Optimus Maximus (or YourLord as he's also known) even arrived on the scene. A list of fictional narcissists was added to the Narcissism (psychology) article some time ago and I now discover that it got its own article which was deleted. I was unaware of this while in the process of recreating said article. On an unrelated note, the aforementioned Narcissism (psychology) article has since been redirected. As regards my knowledge of JOM's age, he brought it up in a conversation with User:Arcayne. I found this out while trawling through his contributions. I wanted to acquaint myself with the individual I was being accused of being. For the time being that is all I have to say on the matter. --Dominus Noster (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Dominus Noster, if that is true, the checkuser will show you are not related. However, the loudest "I am not a sock!" complainers are usually socks. If you aren't a sock, follow the advice from WP:SOCK: "If you have been accused incorrectly of being a sock puppet, do not take it too personally. New users are unknown quantities. Stay around awhile and make good edits, and your record will speak for itself." tedder (talk) 23:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * CU has not been requested here. This is the type of case an admin will review, when they find their way here.  Sy  n 00:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * True, I have not requested a checkuser. However, if majority opinion seems to be that the account is a sock, then given the past accounts and the proximity of age & geographical locale then I will likely request it. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Right, and my point is that Dominus should be encouraging a checkuser request to be filed to clear his(?) name. tedder (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Checkuser's do not clear the name(s) of accused parties. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 00:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Dominus, with regard to your above comment, I do realize that it is perfectly reasonable that there may be many people out there interested in the psychology of fictional characters. However, statistically speaking, the number of 18 year-old British male Wikipedians living within 15 miles of each other, with Latin usernames that are variants of the title "Our Lord", making the same types of edits to the same articles about the same twenty or so fictional characters, is undoubtedly miniscule. In fact, I think it's safe to say it's 1. But if you are indeed, as you say, not JOM, then would you have any objection to a checkuser being requested on your behalf? If you are indeed not JOM, then potentially it could bolster that claim and invalidate my suspicions. However, it could conversely show that you are indeed likely to be JOM. At this point I'm inclined to request it regardless. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users

It seems to me that Dominus Noster is a reincarnation of YourLord. Per the data above about List of fictional narcissists he is not going to very much trouble to conceal his former identity. This diff showing that JOM wanted to recreate List of fictional narcissists is particularly striking Checking the contributions of User:Dominus Noster, I see nothing that might suggest a change of heart or any willingness to leave the dark side. What is the next step? Since YourLord is indef blocked, and there is no proposal to offer him a second chance, I assume the proposed action is to indef Dominus Noster? EdJohnston (talk) 01:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * After looking over the evidence, it is pretty obvious that the above account is a sock, and as such they have been  Tiptoety  talk 04:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Archiving. ~ fl 09:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Report date September 3 2009, 18:54 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Previously confirmed sockpuppets of YourLord include:
 * A number of IPs in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of YourLord have self-identified as YourLord or one of his socks. See each user page for diffs of self-admission.
 * A number of IPs in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of YourLord have self-identified as YourLord or one of his socks. See each user page for diffs of self-admission.
 * A number of IPs in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of YourLord have self-identified as YourLord or one of his socks. See each user page for diffs of self-admission.
 * A number of IPs in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of YourLord have self-identified as YourLord or one of his socks. See each user page for diffs of self-admission.


 * Evidence submitted by IllaZilla

Each of these IPs has recently self-identified as, a blocked sockpuppet of YourLord. See for example: This user has a long history of sockpuppetry and block evasion using IPs and alternate accounts, and has declared his intention to keep editing anonymously despite being blocked. I therefore believe a range block may be in order. However, before such a measure is taken, a checkuser may be in order for some of the IPs to ensure that we do not range block anyone inappropriately. Additionally, Dominus Noster claims not to be YourLord/Jupiter Optimus Maximus (which I don't believe for a moment), so a checkuser is probably necessary to determine whether he and his IPs correspond to Jupiter's. I also recommend checking some of the IPs in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of YourLord and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of YourLord. Nearly all are from the same range and track to either the same locations or in close proximity. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 86.134.231.92 requests unblock of User:Dominus Noster and signs as Dominus Noster (and is subsequently blocked by Dougweller because has been editing for several weeks in contravention of his block).
 * 86.139.35.101 responds to messages left on the talk page of 86.134.231.92.
 * 86.154.105.251 responds to denial of unblock at User talk:Dominus Noster, then follows me to Dougweller's talk page and claims not to be Jupiter Optimus Maximus.


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I've just blocked another IP, an admitted sock of Dominus Noster, see I think we really need a CU here. Dougweller (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

Requested by IllaZilla (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

On the accounts that it might be possible that other registered accounts exist under these IPs (we haven't seen any in a while), the IPs all come from England, and that a CU hasn't been run in a while. However, the three IPs listed is all we got to go on because most everything else is. MuZemike 17:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Not much to see here. From a technical standpoint, based on the logs from April, it's that these IPs are related to YourLord. There are no sleepers, so yeah... J.delanoy gabs adds 18:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * Well, nothing more to do. NW ( Talk ) 18:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly. "Possible". Hardly damming, wouldn't you agree? So what are you waiting for? Unblock me! --User:Dominus Noster

Evidence submitted by IllaZilla
self-identifies as, a confirmed sockpuppet of. This is now his fifth account (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of YourLord), along with a large number of suspected IPs (see here). There is no doubt in my mind that this is the same person, as he considers me his "nemesis" and in the diff above deliberately tracked me to a CfD discussion and signed under his old username as a taunt. Also his behavior pattern has not changed a bit: unref'd original research via his own psychoanalysis of fictional characters, creation of inappropriate categories and lists along these lines, arguing that these should be kept when they show up at XfD because "it's interesting" and therefore we should disregard OR and NPOV, and petulant whining after they are deleted. Given the user's long history of sockpuppetry and block evasion, I propose an immediate indef block and possibly a ban. Given his pattern of using IPs when his accounts are banned, a rangeblock or account creation block may be in order. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Also see this diff where Nemesis the Fourth basically admits to being Jupiter Optimus Maximus. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * It's easy when they admit to it. Bagged and tagged. TN X Man  16:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Rrburke
Self-explanatory. See Sockpuppet investigations/YourLord/Archive. CU may flush out sleepers.

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

 * Well this one is pretty darn obvious. And the user page manifesto certainly matches his ego and disdain for core policies. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by -- Rrburke (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

endorsed to check the link, and for a sleeper check, please. Thanks, SpitfireTally-ho! 11:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No sleepers. --Deskana (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by IllaZilla
I have had many run-ins with YourLord and his various socks in the past. This anon was apparently trolling my talk page, and when I referred to him as Jupiter (most of my interactions with YourLord were with his sockpuppet ) he responded "you immediately assume that it's me". So self-admission, basically: 86.181.166.216 admits to being Jupiter Optimus Maximus, a confirmed sock of YourLord. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

 * Considering his socking history, I'd recommend doing a Check User to sweep up the likely named socks. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 03:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
I'm hesitant to block the IP, as it's been quiet for a while, but a sleeper check might be a good idea. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 16:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

– Behavioral evidence clearly indicates that this is YourLord. No CU necessary. –MuZemike 06:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

IP blocked 1 month. –MuZemike 06:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by IllaZilla
This is one of many IPs used by the indef-blocked to avoid his block. He's been trolling my talk page for many months via various IPs and socks, and I recognized him immediately when he left this little gem out of nowhere. Many more of his IPs and socks can be seen here and here. Some I've identified by self-admission, others by behavior pattern and editing trends (he tends to make the same kinds of edits to the same families of articles, mainly adding original research in the form of his own psychoanlysis of fictional characters and engaging in insulting talk page debates at related philosophy articles). I've been pestered by him for so long that I've come to easily spot his fingerprints whenever one of his IPs pops up on my watchlist. There's been so much abuse (at least a half dozen accounts, plus a couple dozen IPs that all track to the same locations) that I recommend a rangeblock, but I'm not sure how feasible that is so for now I'm only reporting this 1 IP as he's been using it most recently (today) to edit-war and post petulant arguments and insults at Talk:Collectivism and Talk:Individualism, and to add original research to Fictional portrayals of psychopaths. These edits have YourLord written all over them. IllaZilla (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

So it's true: pigs always do stick together. I hope you two will be very happy. --86.150.169.20 (talk) 00:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Look, go ahead. Block me. I'm done trying to save Wikipedia. I'll leave for good. Just don't do a range block. It would be monstrously unfair on the countless unregistered users in Cheshire. I don't want that on my conscience. And I'm not abusive, I'm a loveable rogue. --86.150.169.20 (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Uh-huh. If anyone believes that, I have a bridge I'd like to sell them... --IllaZilla (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * This diff. shows escalating behavior on my user talk page using personal attacks. All is One  (talk) 00:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
No check performed, but I've blocked the IP for pretty obvious block evasion. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 14:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)