Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jemmaca/Archive

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | Jemmaca


Jemmaca

30 December 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

We can be quite certain that both 108's are the same person because of this comment, where 108.170 (who first appeared on Wikipedia on 28 December 2012 and has exclusively edited only in relation to Theresa Spence's hunger strike) clearly responded to a question on his/her talk page... from 108.172. 108.172 says in the next edit to that page that he/she has a named account, but has been editing logged out, which raises obvious suspicions, although he/she claims that there are multiple users using 108.172, so we may be dealing with two sockmasters, both using 108.172 as a sockpuppet, or the sockmaster is lying (very possible, as sockpuppetry is, by its nature, dishonest, even if done in good faith). Soon after, Jemmaca, absent since July 2012 barring a few minor edits on 22 and 23 December 2012, returned in this edit to Talk:Theresa Spence in support of most of the 108s' positions, and Jemmaca also made an edit similar to much of this edit by 108.172. Neither 108 IP has edited since Jemmaca's return. Jemmaca has previously edited Bentwood back in March 2012, before either 108 IP appeared on Wikipedia. Like Theresa Spence, Bentwood is an article related to the First Nations peoples, showing Jemmaca's prior knowledge of First Nations, and further causing his return after such a long WikiBreak to be suspicious. I include Ririgidi here because, after being absent since June 2012, and having only previously edited regarding Irish history and mythology, he returned with this edit to Talk:Theresa Spence, in which he/she agrees with Jemmaca's suggestions to improve the article. This edit was made during a period of several hours in which Jemmaca was inactive. I am requesting CheckUser to closer examine Jemmaca's and/or Ririgidi's connection to one or both IP's and to eachother, to better solidify my evidence, although if it is judged that this is not necessary, then I trust the CheckUser's judgment. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 11:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

I'm comfortable with my relationship to the other three users being checked as I have no connection to them. It is true that I do not make a lot of edits but that is because I am not an expert in any area at all and only feel comfortable with minor edits most of the time. I do not think this is cause for suspicion. Looking at this edit by 108.170.148.125 and comparing it to my edit and my explanation of my edit on the talk page I think it should be clear that I do not agree with the edits being made by user:108.170.148.125 and was genuinely trying to help find a solution. I hope that once RedSoxFan2434 reads those edits she (or he) will trust that I am not any of the other users indicated. Jemmaca (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not one to question if editors and ips might be socks unless it's blatant, so commenting from that perspective: The ip's are pretty clearly socks, but the editors just look like inexperienced editors interested in related topics. If Jemmaca is the same person to use the ip's or other account, then Jemmaca has done a very admirable bit of work in changing editing behavior from being on the brink of a block for edit-warring and multiple BLP violations to working well with other editors. --Ronz (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing Jemmaca's confidence here, I am wondering the same thing: that perhaps my suspicion of Jemmaca as their sockmaster is based purely on coincidence. However, Ririgidi's return struck me as impossibly coincidental, which is what led to my implication of Jemmaca. If no further evidence emerges, this will obviously be closed in his favor. If that happens (and I know I'm running the risk of getting off-topic here), how do you recommend we catch the sockmaster? Put this to ANI? RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've no objections if my account needs to be checked to offer proof that there's no socking going on here. My comments on the talk page, to Jemmaca, were just an attempt to add support and agreement to what seemed to be some of the more constructive suggestions with regards to the article, given the amount of controversy that had been going on. Ririgidi (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Upon posting my previous comment, I did not see this one here due to an edit conflict. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely a disinterested party, having done some work on Hunger strike shortly before the two 108 IPs showed up, as well as having an interest in Theresa Spence. I have a somewhat different interpretation of the situation but I was waiting before starting a formal sockpuppet investigation until I had some time to observe and analyse some of the behaviour around the editing of the two articles. Neither User:Jemmaca nor User:Ririgidi were on my radar. Because of my editing involvement, I didn't really want to bring my suspicions here until I had a high degree of certainty in my conclusions. Really not trying to play coy but I'm still collating the evidence around a possible good hand/bad hand ploy in this case, not an accusation I'm keen to make only on suspicion. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 23:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly what I was first suggesting (because I initially misread some of Jemmaca's comment(s), apparently), but good hand/bad hand certainly is now a possibility. 108.172 (posting on 108.170's talk page as 108.172) claimed that he/she would be back on a named account, and Jemmaca and Ririgidi, after long absences, returned soon after. It is also possible that the sockmaster account has not shown itself yet, although the high frequency of activity between the two IPs indicated (to me at least) that a soon appearance of the sockmaster was to be expected. It is also possible that I am simply wrong in identifying these two accounts. Additionally, we now have this little development, that IP's only edit. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the comments from User:Pigman confused me more than I already am in regards to this all. Then I went to the Hunger Strike page and looked through the edit history there and see that there are similar edits trying to minimize the nature of Chief Spence's hunger strike. While that cleared up some things I am still left wondering why Pigman would be suspicious of me specifically. (Or User:Ririgidi either for that matter.) I do understand the suspicion over the two 108s and now the two other unnamed accounts that have made similar edits. My edits on the Theresa Spence page were not remotely like those ones and the one I pointed out earlier was a direct attempt to stop what I saw as harmful edits. It was probably naive of me to think the unnamed ones would find this solution acceptable and clearly they did not given that the new edit indicated by User:RedSoxfan2434 was made after mine. I would like to thank Redsoxfan for making his reason for suspicion a bit clearer. It seems that it is simply my bad fortune to bumble along in the Theresa Spence talk page when he was expecting the sockmaster to appear. I'm quite inexperienced in the ways of Wikipedia so would appreciate his suggestions in regards to how I may help clear this up. It really does not feel sufficient to just have the request for a check declined. I would sincerely like both Pigman and RedSoxFan2434 to feel confident that I am not any of the other three accounts. In particular not the 108s whose edit war propaganda I find distasteful. Thanks in advance for your help through this process. Jemmaca (talk) 08:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to WP:assume good faith here and assume that this is an unfortunate series of coincidences that led me to implicating you as a sockmaster. (Feel free to WP:TROUT me for doing so.) However, this does not change the fact that there IS a sockmaster operating maliciously at both Hunger strike and Theresa Spence, and this could be in the form of a good hand/bad hand operation (as Pigman suggested) or as an attempt to create an illusion of consensus and NPOV for the changes. I suggest that, unless further evidence against Jemmaca and/or Ririgidi should come forward (and I no longer think anything will), the community ought to move forward to catch the actual sockmaster. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Jemmaca, when I said you weren't on my radar, I meant that I don't think you are involved. I'm looking at an entirely different user, not you or Ririgidi. A good hand/bad hand operation is where a sock does "bad" things (block consensus, vandalize, etc.) while the "good" account (usually a sockmaster and/or a well-established account) does reasonable things (revert the vandalism, etc.) in order to bolster their position as an upstanding editor and protector of the article(s). Sometimes this also involves meatpuppets as well. It's a fairly well established and subtle tactic but it takes careful analysis to confirm if this is happening. Unfortunately, I have far more experience with it than I ever wanted which is why I'm alert to signs of it. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 18:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RSF (and possibly his/her own sock account kathryn) have decided to make accusations and start investigations imstead of discussion what content should or shouldnt have been included in the pages. Point is they didnt like what was added so they remove and fo on a which hunt because to ip editors (and it now appears others) dodnt hold the same political views. Or, it could just be that they are clinically insane. Not sure yet. Try learning something about ip addresses before making accusations. And then try to realize not everyone shares your obvious political point of vew. 108.172.114.141 (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from personal attacks. To accuse somebody of sockpuppetry with absolutely no evidence constitutes a personal attack, and a (much more profane) comment making that claim has been removed from your user talk page as a result (this comment here is borderline attacking and, due to the nature of SPI, I've chosen to leave it up for now). The content issue is not a matter of not "liking" something, but of maintaining neutrality and relying only on reliable sources. In fact, I am sure that Kathryn and I have some very different political views as we are different people. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given the IP editor's history of persistent, disruptive editing, canvassing, and personal attacks, is there really any reason not to block this user? I'm not uninvolved, so will not push the button myself. But I'd like an uninvolved admin to look at the IP's contribs and talk page. There's a serious pattern there. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kathryn about blocking, but I suggest blocking both IPs. Like her, I'm not uninvolved. But the IP has racked up a significant streak of disruption on several counts. The IP's comments clearly show they claim to have a named account as well. And the editing shows a fairly detailed working knowledge of WP policies, indicating they are only using the IP account to circumvent those policies. As well as indications that both IPs are the same editor. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 00:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I concur as well. Even if they are not socks of some as-yet-unidentified sockmaster (which is extremely unlikely based on the evidence), this behavior should not be allowed to stand. In fact, I've been planning to take this to WP:ANI after this SPI is closed (waiting for the closure of this SPI would keep discussion centralized). RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I can't help but notice [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6]; all of those are IPs showing up at Theresa Spence and Hunger strike to make similar POV-pushing edits. How many of those are socks? I don't know and have no way to find out at this time. So just because we block those two doesn't necessarily mean the sockpuppetry has ended. I'd take this to WP:ANEW but I think the sockpuppetry, canvassing, and incivility elements cause this to be more suited for WP:ANI after this page is archived. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
  •   Check declined by a checkuser. It is a little odd that Ririgidi should step out of nowhere to support Jemmaca, but it seems a bit too quick to pull the trigger just because one account agrees with another, and I would prefer to see more evidence before running a check. As for the IPs, CheckUsers do not publicly discuss accounts and the IP addresses with which they're associated. WilliamH (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Clerk note: Redsoxfan has retracted his accusation against Jemmaca and Ririgidi, and I believe that they are separate people. Closing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jemmaca/Archive&oldid=1138673035"