Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jsn9333

User:Jsn9333

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Withdrawn suspects


 * Report submission by

/Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

After new user Jsn9333 began making POV-laden changes against consensus at, several additional new accounts appeared with the explicit purpose of supporting his edits. The contribution histories, including timelines, support the thesis that these are either socks or meats. Especially notable are the similarities in supporting language used (see edit summaries here and here for quick examples).
 * Evidence

At moment I do not have time to dig out all the diffs (Sorry!), however anything more than a quick glance at both the discussion on the Talk:Fox News Channel as well as the history of Fox News Channel and the contribution histories (or lack thereof) of the suspected puppets provides a good picture of what's going on.

Also please note that I have not, at this time, filed an RFCU on this matter. If this needs to be done please let me know on my talk page. Thanks so much. /Blaxthos ( t / c )

RFCU filing may be found here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * RFCU


 * Comments

I know for a fact unc_2002 is a colleague of mine at the state university. I have never heard of any of the other users. UNC_2002 became interested in the foxnews debate after I talked to him about it and showed him the unfair treatment users like Blaxthos were insisting be kept on the fox news entry. I don't believe he had a user account at the time. Also, I will note that there are unidentifiable ip addresses making edits both in favor of the fair treatment I am suggesting and against the treatment I am suggesting. It seems this is a popular debate, and it would be a mistake to assume any socket puppetry on my part simply because Blaxthos (who has been vehemently against my attempts to introduce balance into the critical analysis in the Fox News lead) suggests it may be so. Jsn9333 (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I am definately not a sock-puppet. The reason for the consecutive edits was that I was a little tired and forgot how to insert references correctly until I got it right on the fourth try. Lastly, my contribution history should support this. --C. Raleigh (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I have to agree with this accusation. The changes made by this user, and the edit summaries, are both dripping with POV and very rude towards others, and there are several single-purpose accounts doing the same that have popped up recently. If nothing else, a block is in order, IMO. TheNobleSith (talk) 03:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please explain "dripping with POV" in detail. If one were to look behind this baseless accusation he would see the only change I have suggested is changing, "Critics and some observers of the channel say that Fox News promotes conservative political positions.  Fox News denies allegations of bias in its news reporting.", to, "Critics and some observers of the channel say that Fox News promotes conservative political positions.  Other observers see Fox News as a relatively balanced source for news.[4] Fox News denies allegations of bias in its news reporting."  If anything I am trying to make the lead seem less POV biased by giving both sides of a critical analysis instead of only one side.  The cite I have included is a New York Times article that concludes "a lot of people" are turning to Fox News for more balanced reporting.  Yet editors on Fox News (who have been just as rude to me, if you are going to call debating and questioning each other's reasoning "rude") are saying my addition is "fringe", has "undue weight", and is "dripping with POV".  This is a witch hunt against me.  Yes, I have recruited a friend of mine who otherwise would likely not have known how to start a wikipedia account... but I don't see anywhere in the rules that says I cannot encourage people to join wikipedia.  I certainly haven't seen these "several single-purpose" accounts you are referring to.  I am a recent wikipedia editor, and my history shows I work on one entry at a time... but I have had worked on other entries before coming to the Fox News entry.  Whether or not UNC_2002 edits other entries I don't know, but I can ask him.  But basically, I don't see very much nobility in your false accusations of POV or of single purpose accounts. Jsn9333 (talk) 12:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

First, your account and those in question are single purpose accounts in line with WP:Single-purpose account. Not that that is necessarily a bad thing, but it appears that you and several others who have such accounts are using them specifically to back each other up on the Fox News article. That is a violation of Wikipedia's sock puppet policy. Secondly, as for your changes themselves, they are not in conjunction with WP:Manual of Style, as they contain WP:Weasel Words such as "a lot of people". I agree that some counter arguments to the critiques of the network should be mentioned in the lead, but you should find more sources before doing so and word it better. And try not to accuse us (by us I mean the Wikipedians who are against you in this case) as being on a witch hunt. Just as we want you to, we strive to maintain non-bias and do what is best to make Wikipedia an accurate source of information. Remember WP:AGF TheNobleSith (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * - to thenoblesith, Here, again, are more false accusations from you. Not a single one of my edits have included the words "a lot of people".  My wording was exactly as I quoted above... "other observers".  The NYT pieces says "a lot of people", and I have been quoting that only in the talk page.  Also, I wasn't aware that all statements require multiple sources.  I had multiple sources up at one point, but was told if so many sources are needed then the statement must be a stretch.  So I removed all but the most highly respected amongst FNC entry editors.  You people cannot have it both ways.  My account is a new account, not necessarily a "single-purpose account", which the link you included above (WP:Single-purpose account) points out specifically.  Try not to engage in witch hunts, and I'll try not to accuse you of engaging in them.  The edits I have made have simply eliminated bias and unfair treatment from the lead using an extremely well respected source, and in doing seem to have angered a lot of people including yourself.  That is sad, since you claim to "strive to maintain non-bias."  If you are going to accuse me of "right wing bias, maybe" you should look in the mirror before leveling such accusations.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.37.221 (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not angry about your edits. I could care less about the FNC article. My point in calling you right biased is that you seem to be genuinely getting angry about people mentioning the FNC bias. I suppose I shouldn't have called you biased though, so I'm sorry about that. And as I said in my original post....single purpose accounts are not necessarily a bad thing, but they are a suspect thing, particuarly when they only edit controversial articles, and when several other single-purpose accounts do nothing but back them up. And this isn't a witch hunt. TheNobleSith (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, TheNobleSith, my point in suggesting you (along with the others who have vehemently opposed my suggested change) may be left biased is that you have seemed to be genuinely angry about my desire to include the other side of the critical debate in a leading paragraph concluding observers see bias in FNC. I have repeatedly said I could are less about how anyone views the FNC (in a good light or bad).  The fact is, I spotted an obviously one-sided paragraph in the lead of a popular wikipedia article, and I decided to do something about it.  I just think wikipedia should be above that sort of thing. I am not turning the lead "pro-FNC" in any way, shape or form.  I am seeking to have both sides of a critical analysis included in the lead.  You should be thanking me, not trying to get me blocked and accusing me of bias.  That being said, thank you for your apology for the bias accusation.  Now if you could back those words up with some good faith action I would appreciate it. Jsn9333 (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

Checkuser returned a probably based on same location (university). Main account blocked 48 hours, sock account blocked indef. I won't touch the IP for fear of collateral damage, just in case. GBT/C 19:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)