Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/JIDF Threats

User:JIDF Threats

 * Suspected sock puppeteer


 * Suspected sock puppets


 * Report submission by
 * NoCal100 (talk) 03:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Evidence
 * A few weeks ago, a self-declared sock account of an established user was created in order to request a check-user of User:Einsteindonut. This account was indef blocked as an improper sock account. It seems that the same editor who created that account in order to harass User:Einsteindonut is back at it again, this time as User:JIDF Threats. The new account has the same focus on the Jewish Internet Defense Force article, the same insinuations with regard to User:Einsteindonut, and the same modus operandi - the creation of a single-purpose sock account, to avoid linking the complaint with the master account. I believe this user account should also be quickly indef-blocked. In addition, I think it is proper to run a check user on this account, and block the master account for repeat violations of policy. (I thinkI know who the master of both accounts is, and will provide evidence, in private, upon request).
 * Comments
 * Please remember to notify all accounts listed as possibly linked to the sock puppetry in question (instructions).
 * I think a little empathy is appropriate. The JIDF has tried to "out" two editors — going so far as to publish a photo in one instance — and it has dug up and published detailed information about others. I can understand why an editor is reluctant to put her/himself on the line, especially when, as noted at ANI, "I have asked that oversight be applied to certain edits re my normal wiki account but as that has not happened so I create this ID". — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I refer you to User:FayssalF's comment the last time this happened. It is simply not appropriate to violate WP policies by creating sock puppet accounts for this purpose. If the editor is reluctant to put her/himself on the line, they should not be making provocative comments against other editors, or useless AN/I reports about off-wiki groups. NoCal100 (talk) 04:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Malik here. The JIDF Threats puppet can be blocked without exposing who the puppetmaster is. I have the same objections to this as I did to attemtps to identify ED. Of course, the over-sealous might choose also to try to identify who you are given the evidence that your id was created as an anti-Calton sockpuppet.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * NoCal100 is entirely correct here, both in letter and in spirit. If the sockmaster had a specific idea about who ED was, and evidence, s/he could have provided it in private. In fact, NoCal100 is doing this in the best possible way: opening an investigation into a fishing expedition, but without himself naming who he thinks this person might be. Thus, if he provides private evidence and the results show him to be wrong, or are inconclusive, the innocent editor he suspected need not be embarrassed (and NoCal, also, won't be embarrassed). Anonymous socking harassment in the guise of fishing for violations is strictly prohibited. IronDuke  17:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops! My comment above is somewhat confused, because I came from User talk:Einsteindonut, O had it in my head that this was a CU request. Yes it's a sock - one of many operating in this area - that's gone beyong it's original self-imposed boundary by attacking ED.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The original post includes a CU request: "In addition, I think it is proper to run a check user on this account, and block the master account for repeat violations of policy." — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Pedrito

--Einsteindonut (talk) 05:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * Likely. JIDF blocked for 48 hours.  Enigma  message 20:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)