Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnjohnjames/Archive

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Johnjohnjames

Johnjohnjames (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
13 October 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Somewhat obvious SP situation on Bantu peoples article. The two accounts were created during the same hour. Bobmarley201111 made one edit to the page, substituting one image for another. Youngladladlad1911 then took over and kept insisting on that same image and removing the one that Bobmarley201111 objected to. Neither have made any real text edits or contributions, just image edits. They also have almost identical edit summary writing styles. For example, consistent use of "added photo(s)..." opener. In addition, compare "added photo of himba, one of few remaining groups that have retained traditions" [1] editing rationale with "returned photo of one of few groups that has retained cultural heritage" [2] in reference to the same image. They also have quite similar Name+number-style usernames. Soupforone (talk) 06:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
16 October 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


I already filed a previous SP report on this user [3], which was later closed due to what an admin at the time felt was inconclusive evidence. However, the user has since then returned on the same Bantu peoples article with two new SPs. He has also now openly admitted to being all of the usernames listed above and in the previous report: "(I am not a sockpuppet I've made it obvious Habitmeans383883=Bobmarley201111=Youngladladlad1911=Occurrules2013=driverock2013" [4]. Soupforone (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

The following users are  Confirmed matches to each other and  IP blocked:

 Possible that they are related to Bobmarley201111. Elockid (Talk) 00:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that summary to me is  Endorsed by a checkuser. All accounts blocked. WilliamH (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Clerk note: I've updated this case to show Johnjohnjames as the master, as it's the oldest of the accounts. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11 January 2014
Suspected sockpuppets


Andajara120000 (talk · contribs) (who self-described as "Formerly Tollsnanak900") was recently indef blocked by Bishonen for egregious forum shopping and disruption across a number of articles related to the Black Egyptian Hypothesis. In looking over the editor's contributions, I noted that they had many edits to the article Bantu peoples, and that a brand-new editor, Eastafricancommunity2050 had just contributed to that article. The similarity of the formation of the names made me curious, so I looked through the article's previous editors, and found (besides Tollsnanak900, who we know is Andajara120000) User:Angolaaanaaa, whose pattern of editing was similar to that of Andajara120000 and Tollsnanak900.

When I looked at Angolaaanaaa's user page, I found that this was a sock of Johnjohnjames, and when I looked at the list of confirmed socks of Johnjohnjames I found:

Obviously, the first thing that jumps out from this list is the preference for long names that frequently end in a number, a pattern that is duplicated in the three names I'm reporting here. Since the names just above are confirmed socks of Johnjohnjames, I put them, with the three new ones, into WikiStalk to look at the overlap between them. (Since Wikistalk only takes 10 names, I left out Ehhehehe, which had only 1 edit, and Teneriantenerianatom, which had 3.)

The Wikistalk results show that these editors have an extremely tight focus in common: the peoples of East Africa, especially the Bantu.

This, of course, is not sufficient to prove their connection, and it's probable that the previous socks of Johnjohnjames will be stale by now for CheckUser purposes, but the CU data should be sufficient to show that Eastafricancommunity2050 is a block-evading sock of Andajara120000, and given the very suggestive evidence of the naming preference of Johnjohnjames, and this editor's predilection towards socking, the information presented here should be sufficient to run a check for other socks. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 12:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, a separate Wikistalk report on just the three editors being reported here, shows that they have 11 pages in common, despite the newest editor, Eastafricancommunity2050, having only 17 edits. In their third edit ever, Eastafricancommunity2050 set up a Requested Move on
Central East Africa follows up on an RfC posted there by Andajara120000 just a week earlier.) The editor is clearly familiar with Wikipedia processes. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

  • I'm convinced. This is clearly a sock and if it isn't an Andajara12000 sock I'd be very surprised.
    talk) 16:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Excellent work by BMK, Grouchy Realist! I don't know with absolute certainty whether Eastafricancommunity2050 is another sock, but I strongly support checking. Andajara120000 has been so absolutely disruptive that I'd be happy to catch any socks as quick as possible and nip them in the bud. Cheers, Λuα (Operibus anteire) 21:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is definitely Andajara12000. This user maybe "familiar with Wikipedia processes" but they have no clue on how use them properly (reference sourcing, talk page discussions, and forums use as for examples). This user is very disruptive on several articles and not only this but he has gone out and insulted me, put words in my mouth, miss quote me on purpose (even though they and others can clearly see what I have said), and has threatened to report me using several false accusations against me. If there is anything I can do please inform me. Also we should inform Eastafricancommunity2050, since this involves him/her. AcidSnow (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no requirement to notify the subject of a sockpuppet investigation, and is often advisable not to do so. If the person is indeed a sock, it simply warns them that they're under scrutiny, which may provoke them to drop the sock and move to another. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My bad, forgot they could think of that. What does he even want on wikipedia? AcidSnow (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Clerk endorsed Pretty obvious socking going on, but a CU might be useful to locate any other accounts that have slipped under the radar. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Confirmed:
--
(ʞlɐʇ) 17:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
17 January 2014
Suspected sockpuppets


New editor continuing the edit patterns and interests of another sock,

talk) 16:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

  • I support this request wholeheartedly. I believe, based on behavior and account age, this is probably just another sock.
Cheers, Λuα (Operibus anteire) 17:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
19 February 2014
Suspected sockpuppets


Newly registered account continuing the same disruptive edit patterns and interests/obsessions as the Andajara120000 sock. The familiarity with Wikipedia protocols, trademark breathless edits aross many different pages, and obsession with traditional religion are similar [7]. The account has also added identical original research as Andajara120000 on the same otherwise quiet pages (e.g. "a sustained effort to highlight the close genetic affiliations of the Hutu and Tutsi"; gripe about "attempts at historical revisionism" [8] [9]). Middayexpress (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I suggest checking 110.80.50.34 (talk · contribs) too. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 07:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Johnjohnjames/Archive&oldid=1141880322"