Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jj1010

User:Jj1010

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by

Banazir 10:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Evidence

Suspected puppetmaster has been given repeated warnings for blanking the Controversy section of iTalkBB, the only page that Jj1010 and the above suspected meatpuppets have ever edited, and the only section and edit action that they have committed. Warnings for Jj1010 culminated in a brief (31-hour) temporary block on 20 May 2007.

None of these users has ever responded to requests to desist from blanking, nor edited the talk page to provide any sort of justification. At least three editors (Banazir, AndroidMouse, and Chetblong) have rolled back the page a total of about 20 times to date, to undo the section blanking. Since January, 2007, the Controversy section has contained negative allegations - one of them with a cited reference - of bad business practices by the company described in the article.

The discussion page for iTalkBB contains a calendar of section blankings, showing that the suspected meatpuppets are carrying out blankings in alternation that are cumulatively frequent. It is evident from this alternation that the meatpuppets are working in tandem to avert frequent vandalism blocks. In a recent case, one of the suspects, 216.141.201.178, committed two blankings in a three-day period, four in a one-month period, and six total within about three and a half months, but did not incur a block due to the individual frequency of vandalism being too low.

Circumstantial diff link evidence is provided in the section below.


 * Diff links

For Jj1010

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ITalkBB&diff=131037479&oldid=128639074 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ITalkBB&diff=127505816&oldid=127288735 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ITalkBB&diff=125944267&oldid=125943713 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ITalkBB&diff=119761028&oldid=119226718 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ITalkBB&diff=118527792&oldid=118494064 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ITalkBB&diff=109835972&oldid=108293231 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ITalkBB&diff=105005184&oldid=104980260 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ITalkBB&diff=104866372&oldid=104866031

For 216.141.201.178

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ITalkBB&diff=147246406&oldid=146860933 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ITalkBB&diff=146810550&oldid=145446660 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ITalkBB&diff=140599773&oldid=136894117 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ITalkBB&diff=136894050&oldid=133397741 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ITalkBB&diff=122502626&oldid=121885200


 * Comments

All of the suspected meatpuppets are anonymous, and their IPs differ significantly, but the timing is suspiciously regular, and the blanking edit is identical in almost every case. I submit that the rotation is deliberately intended to subvert Wikipedia anti-vandalism policies by "slipping under the radar".

None of the suspected meatpuppets have ever even written an edit summary, but the puppeteer, Jj1010, once tagged a blanking edit as "delete unverifiable content". (Considering that the content in question is cited with a verifiable source, this rationale is invalid.) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ITalkBB&diff=127505816&oldid=127288735

The frequency of vandalism is not high by absolute measures, but blanking and restoration constitutes almost all of the edits to this page at present, creating an extreme nuisance for its maintainers.

In one of the only cases where Jj1010 made any edits in addition to blanking the Controversy section, he or she demonstrated what I believe to be a vested interest in the company, adopting a defensive POV: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ITalkBB&diff=prev&oldid=104866372

I have collected the above evidence in the hopes that the apparent collusion among the users who are blanking this one page will be identified and discouraged.


 * Conclusions
 * It's quite possible that this is an instance of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, but since these are dynamic IPs blocks would be pointless. I'm afraid that this problem has to be addressed through standard vandal-fighting means, i.e. reversion. If the vandalism is frequent enough page protection may be an option. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)