Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jdogno5/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jdogno5

Jdogno5 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
13 May 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


User:Jdogno5 was indefinitely blocked for repeatedly adding original research to articles, most notably Space Jam. Earlier today, a newly created account (User:Michael Demiurgos) has shown up at the talk pages of these articles to "support" the earlier edits.

  • Space Jam edit by Jdogno5: [1]
  • Talk page edit by Jdogno5: [2]
  • Talk page edit by Michael Demiurgos: [3]



  • Michael's very first edit at my talk page asking how he can bypass a blocked IP address: [6]

I have requested a checkuser as a formality but I don't think it's necessary to be honest. It's a clear case of quacking. Jdogno5 has indicated he is not willing to abide by his block by filing multiple unblock requests at his talk page: User talk:Jdogno5#Blocked. Betty Logan (talk) 08:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Betty Logan (talk) 08:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry below: With all due respect, if this were a user that had not been blocked then why the concern in his first ever post about accessing his account on a blocked IP address: If I attempted to open my account on an IP address that had been completely blocked (no editing, no creating new accounts e.t.c.) but I haven't received a block for anything that I have done under my username, will I be blocked on that IP address? (see User_talk:Betty_Logan#Question_of_curiosity.? This is clearly an editor anticipating posting from a blocked IP, and if so, why? If the IPs don't match but are in the same geographic vicinity it could just be a case that he's created a new account at a school or place of work etc. I'm all for good faith, but not for brand new editors who immediately pick up the cause of a blocked editor. Betty Logan (talk) 09:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further developments

Michael Demiurgos has made substantial edits since this report was filed, so I am going to recap the major points and hopefully there will be enough evidence for this case to progress:

  1. Michael's very first edit was at my talk page, asking whether he could run a new account on a blocked IP address. This is a very curious first edit since it seems to indicate he is anticipating editing from a blocked IP. And why ask me and not an admin, or at a general help desk? I am hardly the Wikipedia oracle.
  2. His second edit was to ask an explicit question about this edit by Jdogno5 in regards to Devil in popular culture.
  3. His third edit was also to ask the same question about Space Jam asked earlier by Jdogno5. Please note this is the second direct connection between Michael and Jdogno 5 in two completely separate topic areas.
  4. In this edit Michael restores an earlier edit by Jdogno5 at Devil in popular culture.
  5. In this edit Michael makes a virtually identical edit to Jdogno5 at Space Jam.
  6. Michael has a preoccupation with Space Jam, Devil in popular culture and List of Digimon Fusion characters. Over half his total edits have been to these three articles, all edited heavily by Jdogno5: [7].
  7. Finally, their behavior in response to being blocked is very similar. Michael has repeatedly filed unblock and help requests on his talk page, and Jdogno5 engaged in similar behavior on his talk page.
I believe there is substantially more behavioral evidence now that can be taken into consideration even without an IP check. Betty Logan (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

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

The modus operandi does seem to be the same as before:

The introduction of excessive trivia sections, the similar topics (Space Jam and Devil in popular culture listed above, but also List of Digimon Fusion characters). @Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry:, I think we're deep into WP:DUCK territory with this one, and possibly out the other side! - SchroCat (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"User:Jdogno5 was indefinitely blocked for repeatedly adding original research to articles, most notably Space Jam. Earlier today, a newly created account (User:Michael Demiurgos) has shown up at the talk pages of these articles to "support" the earlier edits.": What do you mean by "support" if I may ask? (I just want to know what exactly others are saying that I have done.)

I don't understand: What's wrong with asking on the talk page what was wrong with a past edit? Have I touched on a taboo of some kind?

All I did originally was ask what was wrong with the past revisions on the talk pages for those articles (Space Jame and Devil in popular culture). Is that wrong somehow?

"Michael's very first edit at my talk page asking how he can bypass a blocked IP address": I was asking how to appeal a block if I found myself using an IP address that had been blocked. I was asking what was the correct thing to do in that situation: Is that bad?

"Jdogno5 has indicated he is not willing to abide by his block by filing multiple unblock requests at his talk page: User talk:Jdogno5#Blocked.": This "Jdogno5", how does him attempting to appeal a penalty against him a sign of not being willing to abide by a block? All he did was explain what was happening from his point of view: Is that bad? I suppose to use an analogy: Is confessing to a crime you didn't commit necessary to show you are cooperating with the authorities? I also noticed when reading his talk page that he left a message on April 20th and no one has answered him for two weeks. It doesn't seem fair to ignore someone when they are asking for a reasonable explanation on a matter or that someone acknowledge their response to the other person's message sent. Just noting that.

"With all due respect, if this were a user that had not been blocked then why the concern in his first ever post about accessing his account on a blocked IP address: If I attempted to open my account on an IP address that had been completely blocked (no editing, no creating new accounts e.t.c.) but I haven't received a block for anything that I have done under my username, will I be blocked on that IP address? (see User_talk:Betty_Logan#Question_of_curiosity.? This is clearly an editor anticipating posting from a blocked IP, and if so, why? If the IPs don't match but are in the same geographic vicinity it could just be a case that he's created a new account at a school or place of work etc.": I asked because I saw the question and thought it was something worth confirming. I thought it was important to know that if I accessed my account from another location, one where someone else had used the wiki, what to do in that situation.

"I'm all for good faith, but not for brand new editors who immediately pick up the cause of a blocked editor.": I'm trying to understand what that person specifically did that caused him to get blocked. I'm trying to understand what was wrong with the edit because I don't understand what is wrong but I want to understand.

"Further developments Michael has now started restoring the edits that Jdogno5 was blocked over. See [7] (Jdogno5) and [8] (Michael Demiurgos).": Well since I posted my messages on the talk pages and didn't get a response up to this point, I presumed that there wasn't a problem. I was wrong I now see.

"It is obvious it is the same person so could we please have some action on this case?": "Obvious": Pardon me but what is obvious that I am someone else?

"Jdogno5 pasting a preferred version of the article to the talk page[.] Michael Demiurgos doing the same[.]": I pasted that revision to get feedback on where it needed improving without putting it back and creating an upset (at first that is). How does one ask how to improve the revision they wrote other than on the talk page of the article? On the user who reverted it's talk page? I'm just trying to understand.

"The introduction of excessive trivia sections, the similar topics (Space Jam and Devil in popular culture listed above, but also List of Digimon Fusion characters).": Well what is excessive about the trivia? Just trying to understand. It's a crime to like topics that another user did? "

List of Digimon Fusion characters": What does the article for the characters from Digimon Xros Wars have to do with this?

"@Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry:, I think we're deep into WP:DUCK territory with this one, and possibly out the other side! - SchroCat (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)": Maybe it looked like a duck, swam like a duck and quacked like a duck: But on close examination turned out to be an either an illusion, a shapeshifting lifeform or a robot designed to pass off as a duck. My point is just because things seem to be alike doesn't mean they are and shouldn't necessarily be assumed so.

Michael Demiurgos (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

 Possible, but much more likely to be a new user who knows the original user. Certainly not sockpuppetry, and, assuming good faith, not meatpuppetry either. Perhaps it's a real life friend who came along to help? Certainly no blocking needed, I don't think. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 08:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check again... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 14:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

10 September 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


As seen at User talk:Flyer22/Archive 19#Jdogno5 and Michael Demiurgos and at a recent WP:ANI case against Michael Demiurgos, I am certain that Michael Demiurgos is Jdogno5. Much behavioral evidence was presented by Betty Logan in the previous WP:Sockpuppet investigation against Michael Demiurgos. The only reason that Michael Demiurgos was not blocked as Jdogno5 is because the WP:CheckUser analyses that Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry and Risker ran on both accounts didn't connect them. But as also noted in that WP:Sockpuppet investigation, Michael Demiurgos was looking into ways to change his IP address. I am certain that Michael Demiurgos had his IP address/computer location changed in some way (whether it was via a virtual private network, or by operating his computer at a location with a different IP address, or by some other means) so that he would not be "technically" connected to Jdogno5. Really, look at what he stated to Betty Logan about IP addresses. So as far as I'm concerned, Michael Demiurgos should have been indefinitely blocked then. WP:Sockpuppet investigations are not only about the technical data; they are also about the behavioral data, sometimes only the behavioral data. My requesting a WP:CheckUser analysis for this second WP:Sockpuppet investigation is only just in case there is something that now technically ties these two accounts, and in case he has other accounts he's been using. Other than that, I ask that editors look at the behavioral evidence connecting these two accounts. I ask you to ask yourselves if you truly believe all of this is just a coincidence. More behavioral evidence is what follows:

In February 2014, Jdogno5 insisted on changing the God complex article to Deity complex, and he did. He used the words "god complex for a man and goddess complex for a woman" for the lead. In May 2015, Michael Demiurgos insisted on changing the God complex article to Deity complex, and he did. He used the words "God Complex for male, Goddess Complex for female" for the lead.

Now let's look at the way that Jdogno5 replies. As seen with this link, Jdogno5 replies by quoting people and responding to them in the same paragraph. As seen by this and this link, Michael Demiurgos replies the same way.

Jdogno5 is concerned with grammar, and often uses "as well as," seen here, here, here and here. And as seen here and here, so is/so does Michael Demiurgos.

More on the grammar aspect, Jdogno5 would state "Punctuation." in his edit summary and change semi-colons to periods or to colons, as seen with this link and this link. Well, as seen with this link and this link, so does Michael Demiurgos.

Jdogno5 would state "What's happening?", as seen here. As seen with this edit, where he states "What's happening now?", so will Michael Demiurgos.

Jdogno5 would focus on Wikilinks while calling them hyperlinks, as seen here. And as seen with this, so will Michael Demiurgos.

I see nothing else left to state; they are the same person. The same WP:Disruptive editor who needs to be indefinitely blocked, any time he reappears. Flyer22 (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2015 (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]

I've blocked user:Michael Demiurgos indef, because (a) it is obviously the same person as User:Jdogno5, (b) if I understand right, Checkuser is going to be very stale, and (c) he (MD) is currently being disruptive and there's no reason to wait. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe Floquenbeam is correct in all respects, though I had a quick look for sleepers anyway. This was, as expected, useless. Courcelles (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing, nothing else can be done at present. Courcelles (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14 January 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

This account was created on the 24th of September, 13 days after Michael Demiurgos (talk · contribs), Jdogno5's last sock, was blocked. A general outline of the previous account's signature activity can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive898#Michael Demiurgos. Notable similarities are their use of the edit summaries "Punctuation" or "Grammar" (used when indiscriminately removing commas, see this and this diff), and their mutual obsession with tweaking their signatures (for Lucifer Morningwood, see diff, diff, diff, and diff; for Demiurgos, see diff, diff, diff, diff, and diff). The user interaction tool shows a significant amount of overlap on their favorite subjects. I'd say this is a fairly clear case of WP:DUCK. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:10, 14 January 2016 (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]

  • I think the provided behavioral evidence is enough to block him. Indeffed and tagged. Closing. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jdogno5/Archive&oldid=1076207818"