Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JarlaxleArtemis/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:JarlaxleArtemis

JarlaxleArtemis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

JarlaxleArtemis

JarlaxleArtemis (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

Report date February 11 2009, 01:55 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Smallman12q (talk)

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oxymoron83&action=history Smallman12q (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged machinehead because of this edit https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oxymoron83&diff=prev&oldid=262036617


Evidence submitted by Smallman12q (talk)

taken from https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User:Oxymoron83&limit=500&action=history

A lot of these go for WP:DUCK. Smallman12q (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
I think we can be pretty sure admin Nakon is not a Grawp sock. Dragons flight (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  • Say I'm clueless... but what in the heck am I supposed to do? (What is your ideal result of this case?) Do you want those IPs blocked? I understand you say its grawp, and because its him its a lot of users/accounts I'm just not sure what is considered standard practice here. If we want the IPs blocked, I'll need to do some proxy checks first (The IPs are likely proxies). —— nixeagleemail me 14:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may find a proxy, or two. My guess would be that most of the IPs came from /b/. --Kanonkas :  Talk  20:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm not fully sure of what the appropriate action is...I'm not an admin...but I believe that at least the users should be perm blocked.Smallman12q (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me for asking, but what exactly is the point of this? It appears that all the non-IPs are blocked (if any are not, please let me know ASAP), and just a quick look shows that most of them are obviously Jarl/Grawp -- see User:LucyPinder001 for an example. Why go to the effort of posting all those notices to blocked users, not to mention making extra work here? NawlinWiki (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
  •  Delisted The one thing that you can say about Grawp is that he never tries to hide his socks. As such, they need no investigation, and can simply be blocked on sight, with little fuss. Per WP:DENY, I'm delisting this case, in the sure knowledge that Grawp socks will continue to vandalise, and will continue to be blocked for their vandalism without needing to concern ourselves with the question of whether it is Grawp or a copycat. Mayalld (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. 
Mayalld (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date March 3 2009, 03:07 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Kingturtle (talk)

Slip Stupid is engaging in behavior consistent with previous incarnations of JarlaxleArtemis or of JarlaxleArtemis imitators. A) The immediate creation of comprehensive new articles, especially of high schools and of Recent changes article requests; B) The immediate smattering of his userpage with infoboxes, including the usual "This user is opposed to communism in both theory and practice." Kingturtle (talk) 03:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users
  • This doesn't seem like JA to me. Only once do I recall JA using an account to make more than the minimum 10 or so edits to get autoconfirmed, and that was his single "good hand" account. Also, JA has no history of creating high school articles as far as I know. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CheckUser request
Checkuser request – code letter: f (Other reason )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below. Requested by Tiptoety talk
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Just a note, the IPs used by this user are all blocked as open proxies. Please deny IPBE if requested. Thanks. Kylu (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Added the {{RFCU}} template per Kylu's statement below. Tiptoety talk 03:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

 Deferred other checkusers for analysis. Kylu (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's probably not JarlaxleArtemis/Grawp, based on the one non-proxy IP. Dominic·t 09:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

-- PeterSymonds (talk) 23:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


JarlaxleArtemis

JarlaxleArtemis (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

Report date May 24 2009, 13:33 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Graeme Bartlett

please read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Disturbing wikipedia email. WP:ANI reports the same disturbing email sent from the two users Suit and Afghana, to WP email locations. The message from User:Suit was forwarded to my email by user:Tbo_157 to ask for help. The argument on the WP:ANI is to block the users. Can any other aliases be identified? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jarlaxle suggested by User:Jac16888. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]




Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk note: Merged from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Suit. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Note: User:Suit <> User:SUIT. I have unblocked the former. -- Avi (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All blocked. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date December 15 2009, 07:13 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by E Wing

From his/her edit summary on the move log of the Timur article ("Tamerlane flew to another title when hit by the famous Harry Potter giant’s enormous pēnis. The giant whose name starts with a G and ends with a p has altered the name of this page!"). E Wing (talk) 07:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: B  + E (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by E Wing (talk) 07:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed – Please check. And with haste. MuZemike 20:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Hardblocked the proxy he is using. Nothing else really to do. J.delanoygabsadds 21:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
  • Closing and archiving. NW (Talk) 23:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


30 May 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by PMDrive1061
Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
  • Adding this morning's pagemove vandals. Some very deep sleepers here, some with over 500 edits. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's just the one idiot. Replying to the comment below, of course none of the accounts vandalized until today -- this vandal knows that a lot of the edit filters are based on edit count, and deliberately set up sleeper accounts with 500+ edits just so he could commit 1 hour of page vandalism. As I said to PMDrive, a lot of work for an evanescent payoff. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: B  + E (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Where there is one of these accounts, others are sure to be lurking in the corners. PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)  Clerk endorsed This looks convincing although Sheogorath (talk · contribs) seems to be a hacked account as they were never a vandal until today. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is JtV. All the rest were likely JA on a proxy, now blocked. Dominic·t 07:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
27 September 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by PMDrive1061

Been seeing a lot of these springing up as of late; the notes left on my talk page and that of others make this fairly clear who's behind this, directly or indirectly. It's likely just another ED drone, but given the increased frequency of insulting usernames popping up, a CU and possible rangeblock are warranted. PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Confirmed the listed accounts are the same as

They're not JA, though. Probably just an impersonator. TNXMan 15:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • My thoughts exactly. I just wanted to see if there were any more of these little monkeys roaming about. Thanks, T. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No problem. I'll mark for close, although this may need to be archived to a different name. TNXMan 16:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • All of these accounts are JohnnyTheVandal. It's rather obvious on behaviour alone - Alison ❤ 17:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't recall having run into a user by that name; I figured it was JA based on the fact he called me "Lucky" as in "Lucky 6.9." --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Nope - it's JtV. That's  Confirmed. He's been around here at least 5 years now, trolling on and off - Alison ❤ 21:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Charming individual, no doubt.  :) Thanks, Alison. You are truly one of the good ones. PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
22 May 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

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

Again, similar POV-pushing on List of indigenous peoples. Resembles Ajdkj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Jasper Deng (talk) 05:07, 22 May 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

 Clerk endorsed account blocked by Bsadowski1 based on evidence. Endorsed for a sleeper check. Many thanks, SpitfireTally-ho! 11:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed, underlying IP already blocked as an open proxy by another CU. –MuZemike 16:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

25 May 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Some blocked accounts were following me around and reverting all my edits:[1][2] now this "new" account has shown up and done the same:[3], request CU. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:46, 25 May 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

Anguished56 and Bricklines are Red X Unrelated, but Bricklines is  Confirmed as Grawp. –MuZemike 15:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: originally opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bricklines, archived under JarlaxleArtemis. SpitfireTally-ho! 20:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

06 June 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

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

Same sort of things on List of indigenous peoples Jasper Deng (talk) 05:40, 6 June 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
  • Yah,  Confirmed - posting thru a Russian proxy IP. Alsol

- Alison ❤ 05:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really have to make an SPI for him every time he's found out? --Bsadowski1 05:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how else to report.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Runtshit socks are simply referred to AI/V, where they are swiftly dealt with. Why not do follow that practice? RolandR (talk) 08:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only problem I can see with reporting to AIV is that we'll potentially miss some sleepers if it goes to AIV. If it's here, we can run a CU on it and so on. Either way, this case is done. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
29 June 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Repeating the same abusive talk page edits that led to original block. Also a clearly abusive username. Checkuser would help discover any sleepers. RolandR (talk) 08:41, 29 June 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
12 July 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

After recovering from a ear-splitting quack, I saw the contributions. --The Σ talkcontribs 01:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

  • CU is only necessary to actually tag these socks as confirmed. However, JarlaxleArtemis is known for sleepers.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
26 July 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Same old story, except this time with page-move vandalism. Jasper Deng (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, the user is blocked.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:25, 26 July 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
7 August 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

The usual, repeatedly hitting List of indigenous peoples this time. Given the number of socks being used a sleeper check would be advisable. Prioryman (talk) 10:17, 7 August 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
20 August 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Aceman gets blocked indef, this guy shows up doing the exact same edits within the hour with same edit summary Falcon8765 (TALK) 05:47, 20 August 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


26 August 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

In the filter log, this user tries to create a BLP-violating article on the topic of Israeli-Palestinian conflict that Grawp is known to vandalize often. I'm not sure though, so CU is wanted. Jasper Deng (talk) 04:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


I've been up all night trying to master how to publish an article. I finally get my article all properly formatted and somebody says I'm a "vandalizing" and "sockpuppeting"??? My understanding is that sockpuppetting means somebody thinks I'm using multiple usernames? I'm not. But how could I possibly prove that? And how can my accuser possibly prove guilt? This whole thing is a little ridiculous. If you have a problem with the actual article and its contents, please, let's talk about that. I'm tired and want to go to bed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockinbow (talk • contribs) 04:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are innocent until proven guilty. You're not vandalizing Wikipedia, but I accused you of being a sockpuppet of a person who's known to vandalize.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You need to provide evidence, Jasper Deng, and in the form of diffs. Suspicion doesn't cut it. Don't do this again unless you have actual evidence. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

This man is a friend of mine, who is on on Facebook right now and non-too-pleased with this frivolous CU. He is not a sock-puppet. Is this how we want to treat new users in contentious areas? "Innocent until proven guilty" also means we don't take new users to CU because of policy misunderstandings. Good Lord, talk about biting the newbies. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

06 November 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

I've just received 99 offensive racist emails from this account. Cf Prammac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Nickovie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), My password is poopvomit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and several more. RolandR (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC) CU requested because these accounts, and many other similar socks, were all created on 21 June; there are likely to be several more. RolandR (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peretz Kidron has just been vandalised, with the same content as the emails to me, by IPs 76.248.235.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 109.44.4.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 66.229.20.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 72.216.38.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). RolandR (talk) 21:42, 6 November 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

information Administrator note Blocked with email and talk privileges revoked. No other accounts present. Nothing more we can do, sorry. Elockid (Talk) 20:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's probably more, but the data is  Stale. So I can't see where the accounts were created from. Elockid (Talk) 20:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16 November 2011
Suspected sockpuppets
  • User:MuZemike deleted a sockpuppet investigations page for Ihateantisemites due to being socks themselves of Grawp, which is a sock of this account.--1966batfan (talk) 01:15, 16 November 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

This is being handled, and a few pages have already been protected. Marking as closed. –MuZemike 01:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

28 January 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

These accounts, and several more, have been adding abusive comments and threats to Peace Now and Talk:Peace Now. After several SPAs and IPs were blocked, the suspected puppeteer (Urbanmeans), who had been created six months ago, made ten innocuous edits in order to become auto-confirmed, and then moved the article to a highly abusive name. Although all accounts have been blocked, I am requesting CU to establish and block any further sleeper accounts. RolandR (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what has happened here. I am fully aware that these are not Runtshit, and did not post them as a Runtshit SPI. Why has someone moved this here? RolandR (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2012 (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

I already checked last night and today. I highly think that is is you know who even though they are not from their usual location. Elockid (Talk) 16:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


28 January 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Sleeper accounts from August 2011. First one used for pagemove vandalism, last two for email abuse. Please CU if possible, thanks. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2012 (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
  •  Clerk note: There's clearly some overlap with this case, it's just a question of finding out where. Given that we closed that other case I'm inclined to close this one as well, but I'd like to hear from one of the other clerks. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I noted on the other case, that one is JA, not Runtshit. Someone should check the two email abusing accounts before closing this one. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've checked the two e-mail abusing accounts plus Urbanmeans, and there's nothing else to do. Proxys have been blocked. WilliamH (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12 June 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


obvious sock. continues the edit wars of other socks of jose.medez.  altetendekrabbe  06:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Zander Christine (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Another with the same edit summaries. Chris857 (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

information Administrator note I've also blocked a number of accounts. Elockid (Talk) 01:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is Grawp, the report for today. Could a clerk merge/copy over this with Grawp's case. Elockid (Talk) 03:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
03 July 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


The usual pattern of virulent personal attacks on anyone or anything perceived as insufficiently pro-Israel. Please check for sleepers and underlying IP (probably a proxy), thanks. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

It's probably worth adding XaxierMendes20 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) to this investigation, and possibly others adding similar comments on Norman Finkelstein and CounterPunch.RolandR (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And Emptyeveryndwnj‎ (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). RolandR (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention Blow up racist CounterPunch (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Yourbadnjw (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). NawlinWiki (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Clerk endorsed - Sleepers definitely per deletion log of this page (revdels). -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed, with Talkablloood (talk · contribs) the only obvious one not already blocked.
  • I've also hardblocked some ranges that have no business editing (dedicated servers) and which have proxies and no collateral, and two extra proxies just for good measure. — Coren (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
05 July 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

Given the modus operandi of this user and the fact that the IP is posting at ANI, getting people riled up about vandalism that so far no one has seen occurring, it's probably useful to look into this IP and see if they're related. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2012 (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
  •  Clerk declined - CU generally will not connect names and IPs. Determination will have to be based on behavioral evidence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Additional information needed Please provide diffs showing similarities to master and/or previous socks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IP is already blocked. IMO though, this isn't him. Elockid (Talk) 01:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's not JarlaxleArtemis, it's one of our other trolls, not sure which one. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
23 July 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

Obvious duck is obvious duck. Just doing this for the record and making sure there aren't others tied to it (not fishing, as I've not put anyone I suspect might be but don't have evidence for). I cannot provide diffs, but if the usernames are not enough info, I personally reverted both accounts' posts to Talk:Anders Behring Breivik. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:19, 23 July 2012 (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

-- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hold on for now, I may have something incorrect here. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So not only is this Jose.medez248, but Jose.medez248 is Grawp (talk · contribs)/JarlaxleArtemis (talk · contribs). -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note:Ok, I've changed master, moved page, merged histories, retagged Jose, blocked or reblocked everyone else with the proper master, dotted all the i's and crossed the t's. I will leave for someone else to check my handywork and close, or close later if no one does. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 21:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dennis's handiwork looks immaculate. Marking for close. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
06 September 2012
Originally selected master
  •  Clerk note: This was originally filed under Spentloose324, but based on contributions, this is clearly JarlaxleArtemis. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suspected sockpuppets

This on my talk page[4] and the 40 odd emails I got from the sock. "Fucking Eurofilth, I hope all you Europeans and Arabs get exterminated. For two thousand years, you scum have tried to exterminate us and failed. First the Romans, massacring six hundred thousand Jews in Jerusalem and spreading us across the Roman Empire as slaves. Then the pogroms by Cossack, Polish, and Russian barbarians. Then the German trash. Yet you failed every time. And that was just some of the things happening in Europe. All the while in the East we were forced to live as dhimmis under Muslim rule. Now that we have finally rebuilt Israel, you Europeans will never be able to destroy us. We will nuke you hateful scum into oblivion if you try. Furthermore, the Arabs and Muslims will never get to rule us again. Now it's their turn to be ruled. Let them be servants for a change! Long live Israel! Fuck Eurotrash and Islamofilth!

Whose land are you occupying, Christian? If you come from the Americas, Australia, or New Zealand, you and your ancestors are guilty of crimes against humanity by stealing land via genocide. And if you come from Europe, you and yours are guilty of two thousand years of genocide against Jews. YOU have no room to talk, European Christian.

The Palestinians are an artificially created entity, manufactured by the Arabs, to destroy Israel. They never have been and never will be a nation. They can have all the U.N. groups like UNESCO try to create the illusion that they're a real nation. But in the end, all those moves are meaningless. They will never, ever, destroy or reduce Israel, even if Israel has weak leaders." Obvious sock IMO Facts, not fiction (talk) 05:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • And now we have confirmation[5] A check for sleepers is a must. Facts, not fiction (talk) 06:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, please look below. A sleeper check was already performed. Best, Tiptoety talk 06:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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

  • I got a bunch of those emails too. Must have been reading Wiki history of some article or other that set him off. And in my case, it's "pagan American trash" for your info, Mr. Sockpuppet! CarolMooreDC 17:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Confirmed:
 Clerk note: Moved from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spentloose324. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reblocked all the socks with talk page editing and email disallowed, and I've deleted the userpages per WP:DENY. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
19 December 2012
Suspected sockpuppets



The first seven IPs are all edit-warring to reinsert in British Empire or Talk: Socialism unreferenced POV abuse, first added by blocked sock Arguegroup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The other two are adding abusive comments to a related ANI discussion. Likely open proxies, certainly being used to avoid a block. RolandR (talk) 10:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC) RolandR (talk) 10:45, 19 December 2012 (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
  •  Clerk note: I've semiprotected Talk:Socialism, and Closedmouth semiprotected the other. I've blocked the IPs for two weeks as likely meatpuppets or proxies. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
19 December 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


These IPs are continuing to add abusive and POV material originally added earlier today by banned sock Arguegroup. Several other IPs have already been blocked today. RolandR (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC) RolandR (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2012 (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
  •  Clerk note: Proxies blocked and target page semiprotected. Closed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
18 December 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Email_abuse for details. Users both mailbomb other users. THis is part of a larger cas of sockpuppetry. See also Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Dnwnfowno's edits were at least to my talk page and have been redacted by thers. Contents was notified in email and was racist

The IP editor abuse seems limited(!) to unpleasant talk page messages

For the IP editors see:

User is obviously using a proxy server to create mayhem in the same racist and disrputive manner

and Milesgive3030- is currently still sending abusing emails. A true joy, this lot Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not normally accept edits from certain types of proxies. It would make sense to add the type in use by this obstructive and abusive creature to the "always blocked" list. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. I've added 4 more IPs that quacked really loudly on NawlinWiki's talk page. Legoktm (talk) 10:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just pruned your list by 2. They were already in the list. Hardly surprising with the welter of stuff being produced at present. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly JarlaxleArtemis. All identified accounts have been blocked, and email access subsequently revoked. When blocking this abuser, please remember to revoke email access at the same time, as the accounts are mainly being used for spamming other editors with large quantities of racist, obscene abuse and graphic threats of personal violence. RolandR (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Clerk declined as this abuse appears to be originating from proxies, I don't see any evidence that checkuser would be helpful in this case. There is very little more we can do other than to whack-a-mole, with hardblocks on the IP addresses. Someone may wish to up the current blocks from anon. only and increase the length to about 2 weeks or so, seeing as they are static (and most likely compromised) addresses SpitfireTally-ho! 11:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Moved from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Enemy of the Jihadis. Also closing, since everybody got blocked. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
27 December 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Sleeping sockpuppet account now being used to re-add the personal attacks on Carolmooredc, some of which were reported in the previous (non-checkuser) case (26 December, Echigo mole). There the attacks were added by open proxy ips and rev-delled by Elockid. I have informed him of these new attacks on his talk page. Mathsci (talk) 08:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The trolling [6] on Elockid's talk page, after this report was made, confirms that this is Echigo mole. Mathsci (talk) 08:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I actually believe this is User:JarlaxleArtemis. --Bsadowski1 09:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, hard to explain the one rev-delled edit here,[7] where all the other edits match those of Echigo mole. But the attacks by that blocked proxy on Elockid and on Carolmooredc are not characteristic of Echigo mole. Mathsci (talk) 10:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The trolling you mentioned above is characteristic of Jarlaxle. --Bsadowski1 10:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The removing of tags with WP:HUSH in edit summaries and the use of multiple open proxies are typical of Echigo mole. Only the edit on an article talk page is atypical. Why should he look for taggings of suspected Mikemikev or Echigo mole ipsocks? Possibly he's experimenting with a new persona. Mathsci (talk) 10:11, 27 December 2012 (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
21 May 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


The usual. He's probably using a proxy, but we ought to check for sleepers anyway. Also, note that User:Lauriacts and all those socks are also JA, and that SPI page probably should be merged here. Thanks! NawlinWiki (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2013 (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
01 November 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Continues vandalism directed against Huldra, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Admins:_please_stalk_me.21_This_guy_is_following_me_around. Sjö (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2014 (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
  •  Confirmed - likely proxy, no other socks. Some of us have moved on, and some ... have not - Alison ❤ 00:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • All set here, closing. Mike V • Talk 00:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JarlaxleArtemis/Archive&oldid=1147993982"