Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jacob Peters/Archive

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

User:Jacob Peters

Jacob Peters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Jacob Peters

Jacob Peters (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 January 30 2009, 01:56 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Suspected sockpuppets (additional report)
Evidence submitted by C.J. Griffin (talk)

Sky01, like other Jacob Peters socks, deletes sourced sections of the Mao article regarding the mass executions of landlords and counterrevolutionaries and then rewrites it to paint Mao in a favorable light. Confirmed JP sock edit (Hadjin): [1]; Sky01 edit: [2]

I highly suspect that he's also the one behind the recent extremely POV edits to the Vladimir Lenin article using multiple IP addresses, branding those historians who are critical of Lenin as "anti-Communist," among other things. Particularly interesting is what he says about Richard Pipes which clearly violates NPOV: "The anti-communist historian/polemicist and former CIA Team B head Richard Pipes wrote..." [3]. Jacob Peters socks have attempted to discredit Richard Pipes in the past: [4] And there can be little doubt that User:84.66.78.130 and User:84.67.137.186 are the same person (most likely Jacob Peters), judging from the rv history. [5] I suspect User:90.203.62.9 of as well, but not as sure about this one as the other two.

Sky01 is still vandalizing the Mao article in typical Jacob Peters fashion. Evidence that this is indeed JP: Confirmed JP sock edit (Hadjin): [6]; Sky01 edit: [7] This in and of itself is powerful evidence. But also the rhetoric he uses in the talk section of the Human Rights in North Korea article is typical of JP [8]. I'm requesting checkuser because there is no doubt that this Sky01 is indeed a JP sock and no action has been taken on my previous report [9].--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence submitted by Biophys (talk) 17
30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Kwinkt is certainly Jacob Peters. He started making the same changes in the same article, Holodomor denial as one of Jacob Peters puppets, Drabj:

  • edit by Drabj and
  • edit by Kwinkt - Please note insertion of similar quotes like "There is no actual starvation or deaths from starvation" about the famine.

Note that name of 3rd sock is a combination of two first names.

Kwinkt, Kaserne and Nejedly started editing on February 5 during mostly unoverlaped periods of time:

  • Kwinkt 19:58-23:41
  • Kaserne: 19:36-19:48
  • Nejeldy: 18:04-18:20

This is all consistent with a pattern when one person switch from one account to another. However, he seems to open several accounts in the same time after 8 pm.

Note that Kaserne inserted poorly sourced accusations in a BLP article of historian Robert Conquest who wrote a book about Holodomor (the subject attacked by Kwinkt-Drabj). Nejedly made massive deletions of text in article Soviet war crimes. This is all consistent with POV/editing style of Jacob Peters.

YBM29 is currently inactive but also made similar ideologically edits in in similar articles. Like others, he is basically an SPA who did almost nothing but reverts.Biophys (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

If you could be bothered to check my IP, I am located in the United Kingdom. The IPs associated with Jacob Peters are all located in Los Angeles. Stop throwing silly accusations at people who happen to disagree with your POV. --84.64.63.107 (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

This IP user from UK is certainly a problem (but perhaps a separate problem). He constantly changes his IP addresses. I know him from his edits in articles Anatoliy Golitsyn and Jeffrey Nyquist. His IP addresses can appear as beginning from 217 (User:217.134.81.59, User:217.134.227.42, and so on, for example at this talk page: [10]), but he also edits under 84... addresses (User:84.67.15.192 etc.), like here [11], causing problems in BLP articles, when a person described in the article is trying to intervene [12] (I hope we do not have a lawsuit yet?). He does the same in other BLPs:[13] (I can easily provide evidence that it is the same person). I once reported him to WP:AVI, but they could not block him because he operates over a very wide range of IP addresses.Biophys (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Biophys (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]


The username similarities between the 3 first users are obvious though :) -- lucasbfr talk 09:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no Unnecessary, really. You seem pretty sure without a checkuser. --Deskana (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The request was about five users. If all of them are confirmed, should they be blocked?Biophys (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is, if you come to SPI asserting that you're already certain they're sockpuppets, that your case will likely be declined as unnecessary. Are you not as certain as you said you were? If you're not, that's fine, I'll look at it more. --Deskana (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed: Jacob Peters =

IP editors are Red X Unrelated

Dominic·t 07:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All the confirmed accounts are now blocked. --Kanonkas :  Talk  14:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. 
--Kanonkas :  Talk   14:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date May 2 2009, 02:41 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Biophys (talk) 02
41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Both edit same articles and make edits of the same character as their master. IP came from the same geographic area. I reported him previously here. Two his other socks, User:Kamop and User:Crowl2009, were recently blocked by Alex Bakharev after conversation at my talk page [14]. Biophys (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Awaiting initial clerk review.    Requested by Biophys (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk note:: It actually doesn't look like Kupredu and the IP edit the same articles as the Jacob Peters farm. Can you provide some evidence in the form of diffs? Thanks, ? Nathan T (formerly Avruch) 15:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Let's first establish connection between this IP and Kupredu: Edit by IP: [15]. Edit by Kupredu: [16]. Same edits. I can provide more if needed. Wow, he came from New York! This is someone else. That might be User:Galassi (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lute88) who I had no intention to report (that would require some additional investigation). Sorry.Biophys (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is very suspicious: see the edit history. Galassi and Kupredu are conducting edit war with User:DonaldDuck and they both behave as one user. Now, let's look another article: edit by Galassi, and edit by Kupredu. My suggestion: a checkuser should check Galassi. What do you think?Biophys (talk) 00:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a retaliatory action by Biophys, probably in response to opposition of his edits that whitewash Solzhenitsyn. I am not familiar with Kupredu, and I have reverted him/her on at least one recent occasion. As to user DonaldDuck he is an antisemitic wikitroll, who simply deletes chunks of text without discussion or even explanation.Galassi (talk) 00:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please provide diff where you reverted Kupredu? If I wanted to report you, I would do it in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lute88. This all had happened by an accident. I have asked an advice from Nathan. This is now up to him.Biophys (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be fair. This is apparently a sock of User:Serebr, one of Galassi opponents (see Lute88 case). He should be checked too.Biophys (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1.Kupredu: In Bohdan Khmelnytsky yesterday. 2.Thanks for the Borealis55 tip, I never suspected that. Serebr has been banned permanently from the Russian wiki, and he moved to traditio.ru, an ultranationalist wikiclone.

I also suspect that DonaldDuck is a sock of MPowerdrive, as both heavily drive a monarchist POV. Galassi (talk) 03:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that could be the case, because he is an SPA who conducts synchronize edit warring with User:DonaldDuck, as clear from his edit history. He should be checked too.Biophys (talk) 03:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's an SPA?Galassi (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My recommendation. Check the following SPA accounts:
  1. User:Kupredu and User:208.87.66.239 - probable socks of User:Galassi (see also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lute88),
  2. User:MPowerDrive, a probable sock of User:DonaldDuck,
  3. User:Borealis55, a probable sock of User:Serebr.

All these socks are apparently involved in violations of 3RR rule.Biophys (talk) 02:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Clerk note:: These case files need to stay one report per sockmaster/potential sockpuppets. Otherwise it gets too messy for people to follow and makes it harder for clerks/CU to address the report in a timely manner. Are we saying that none of the newly reported accounts (excluding Kamop and Crowl) are Jacob Peters socks? If so, then this case should be closed and (if necessary) new ones opened under the appropriate names. Nathan T (formerly Avruch) 18:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, although I am not completely sure about User:Kupredu. If I was an administrator, I would block him and a couple of other SPAs who are used almost exclusively for edit warring.Biophys (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. I am going to close this case, and ask that you refile the individual cases with evidence specific to the link between the sockmaster and sockpuppets you identify in the report. Nathan T (formerly Avruch) 21:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date May 14 2009, 21:46 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Biophys

First of all, Kupredu also seems to edit as 208.87.66.239 (talk · contribs). At least some of their edits are almost identical like here by Kupredu, and and here by the IP. The IP comes from LA area, the home of banned Jacob Peters.

Second, the edits by Kupredu and Jacob look very similar:

  1. this is Kupredu about Hezbollah and this is Jacob Peters about the same.
  2. This is Kupredu about Allende, and this is Jacob about Sandinista.
  3. This is Kupredu about Robert Mugabe, and this is Drabj, his sock about Mugabe.
  4. Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict - by an IP of Jacob Peters and Kupredu here [17]

Some evidence was also discussed here. Biophys (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

I asked an advice from Tiptoety. Biophys (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for checkuser


Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Confirmed. I've blocked a couple of IPs. Dominic·t 04:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Icestorm815 • Talk 04:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date May 19 2009, 06:29 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Grandmaster


Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jacob Peters/Archive. Kupredu is a sock of User:Jacob Peters, and there's a whole lot more of other socks there. InRe.Po (talk · contribs) appears to be the same person, as his edits at March Days closely resemble those by Kupredu, who was blocked indef just a few days before. Grandmaster 06:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit by Kupredu: [18] Added the following text:

In December 1917, Azerbaijani nationalists began to disarm Russian troops who were crossing their way back to Russia. In January 1918 units of the nationalist Azerbaijani militias killed over 1000 Russians on a troop train who resisted this disarming. This incident was followed by organized attacks on Russians throughout Azerbaijan. At the end of February 1918, the Azerbaijani nationalist forces invaded Lenkoran and overthrew soviet power there.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=rZ_jfMXuZLoC&pg=PA20&dq=Savage+Division+1000+Russians Commissar and Mullah, Glenn L. Roberts, p.20] </ref>

Then comes InRe.Po and adds the same text by his very first edit: [19] Very strange coincidence. Grandmaster 19:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
This is totally baseless. I'm trying to improve the readability of the article. Working mostly with the text already in the article. Correcting grammatical issues. Stylistic problems. The article was a collection of quotes, when I first saw it. There is a clear WP:Style rule against articles with excessive use of quotes. Besides this user should be using WP:Good Faith and presenting his position to me first before applying to more drastic methods. --InRe.Po (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by Grandmaster 06:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk note: I'm not seeing a connection outside of the same article at the moment. Please provide diffs. Synergy 13:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk declined I am unconvinced by the diffs. Like Synergy, I just see users editing the same page. — Jake Wartenberg 04:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

No presentation of further evidence so I'm closing this for now. Reopen if there is more. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date August 10 2009, 02:46 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by C.J. Griffin

Lidua is vandalizing the Decossackization page much the same way Jacob Peters socks have done in the past:
Lidua edits
Matvei Blanter (Confirmed Jacob Peters sock) edits

--C.J. Griffin (talk) 02:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by C.J. Griffin (talk) 02:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]


 Clerk declined behavioral evidence clearly indicates that this user is Jacob Peters. No CU necessary. MuZemike 04:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions

User:Lidua already indefinitely blocked as a vandalism-only account by patrolling admin. No further action necessary. MuZemike 05:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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




Report date August 11 2009, 01:26 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by C.J. Griffin

Looking at the revision history of the Decossackization article, it looks like Jacob Peters is using multiple sockpuppets this time.

--C.J. Griffin (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk note: The Decossackization article has been semi-protected for two weeks upon my request. I'll leave it to the discretion of any patrolling admin whether or not to block and keep this SPI open, but IMO I don't think it's going to do much good. MuZemike 14:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Just close it, there's not a lot we could do with other than semi-protect. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Report date August 15 2009, 20:59 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by C.J. Griffin

Jacob Peters is extremely active this month with his sockpuppets. He is now vandalizing the Vladimir Lenin page now that the Decossackization page has been protected.

As you can see from his edits, it's definitely Jacob Peters

--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions

 Clerk note: Blocked and tagged. — Jake Wartenberg 01:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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




Report date August 16 2009, 06:10 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by King of Hearts

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Johnnypd reported by User:Martintg (Result: ). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]



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

Both accounts made just a few edits, but all of them are basically edit warring and have been reverted, as typical for editing by Jacob Peters in general. More evidence can be provided if needed.Biophys (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions

Jacob Peters (talk · contribs) is  Stale, Johnnypd (talk · contribs) is  Confirmed as Srazin (talk · contribs) and Lidua (talk · contribs). BJTalk 22:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged appropriately. NW (Talk) 22:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date November 21 2009, 15:47 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by C.J. Griffin

Vikhri appears to be another sockpuppet of banned vandal Jacob Peters. Peters is notorious for mass deleting sourced materials he doesn't like in articles pertaining to Communist repression, often alleging they are "not reliable" and replacing them with dubious materials that attempt to whitewash marxist regimes and their atrocities. Now he is vandalizing the Campaign to Suppress Counterrevolutionaries article in a similar fashion: removal of sourced material on suppression of counterrevolutionaries from the Mao Zedong article removal of sourced material from the Campaign to Suppress Counterrevolutionaries article --C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Blocked/tagged. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date December 6 2009, 14:09 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by C.J. Griffin

It seems Jacob Peters is hitting the Decossackization article again using yet another unregistered account, adding what appears to me to be dubious materials attempting to downplay the murderous nature of the policy. A look at the history of the article confirms he has a habit of doing this. (see his sockpuppets Barjag, Hadjin, Matvei Blanter, Lidua) --C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  •  Clerk note: Much of the behavioral evidence certainly fits, but there are a few things that are holding me back from blocking. Requesting a checkuser to be verify. NW (Talk) 20:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.
What am I supposed to check against? All of the previously blocked accounts are stale. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that, checking against User:Vikhri and User:Yakooza2, both listed in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jacob Peters. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's  Possible but that's the best I can say. A checkuser that has notes from previous cases may be able to tell you more. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contacted Brandon in hopes that he kept notes. NW (Talk) 21:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date December 22 2009, 01:29 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Termer

The pattern: The new account User:DHooke1973 has a similar Communism related agenda and a habit of spreading his/her comments all over on talk pages, + very often forgets to sign his/her comments. please see Talk:Holodomor#Title.2FIntroduction_to_the_topic_is_very_biased by User:Yakooza2 vs. Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#Lede_2 by User:DHooke1973.--Termer (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by Termer (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk declined – Behavioral evidence clearly indicates that this is Jacob Peters. No CU necessary. –MuZemike 02:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 02:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
18 February 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Both hitting the Cheka article with the same disruptive edits (see here). Similar ideological arguments as User:Jacob Peters, who has a history of vandalizing this very article with socks (see here). C.J. Griffin (talk) 01:04, 18 February 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 January 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Edits on Decossackization and Cheka are similar to those of what User:Jacob Peters, ideological arguments are similarly identical, looking through past mainspace/talk page edits by User:Jacob Peters and related prior sockpuppets. I cannot say that I have dealt with User:Jacob Peters before, so if someone who has can take a look and see if the IP listed above is a sock,.. it would be greatly appreciated. See User:132.239.90.10's contributions for more information. --dsergienko (talk) 22:47, 20 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
27 January 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

A number of edits to the Mao Zedong article were reverted on 21 Jan 2012 as a "sockpuppet attack" by Jacob Peters. More edits have since been added which seem to be by the same person. On the talk page, this user habitually starts each paragraph with And..., focuses on specific sources such as Mosher and hrichina which are always characterized in similar ways (undue weight, Chinese think tank based in the west, not properly attributed), and with each edit removes material which the contributor regards as derogatory to Mao or the Chinese Communist Party, replacing it with material sourced to official Chinese newspapers or agencies. Rgr09 (talk) 12:17, 27 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

 Confirmed that Xylophage and Pilea (talk · contribs) are the same as each other. Since the technical data on the accounts in the archive are  Stale, there's no connection I can make there. TNXMan 16:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

12 March 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

Noting here purely for documentation. This account has been blocked per CU evidence. Tiptoety talk 05:25, 12 March 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
08 April 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Similiar behaviour to his previous sockpuppet user:SadSwanSong in case of Libyan civil war and Muammar Gaddafi articles which also led recently to 1 week block, including removal of sourced content, replacement of RS by non-RS just to fit his point of view, similiar usage of arguments on the talk pages of both articles et cetera. [20] [21] compared to SadSwanSong [22] [23] [24] and such. Can´t really compare it to socket master account. And although I know that these diffs are not exactly heavy proofs, his style of argumentation, focus on topics, strong POV, inclination towards flame wars and usage of same or similiar sources strongly points out the similarities between those two accounts. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:54, 8 April 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

Justicejayant appears Red X Unrelated to SadSwanSong. TNXMan 13:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

04 November 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


The edits by these IPs at Genocides in history seem to be a good match for User:Jacob Peters based on behavior. A fuller discussion has occurred at WP:AN3#User:76.232.253.235 reported by User:TheTimesAreAChanging (Result:76.232.252.0/22 blocked for 72 hours ) where the behavior of the IPs is described in more detail. The existing 72-hour rangeblock will expire soon and other admins should be made aware of the pattern so that further action can be taken if needed. The main purpose of filing here is for documentation and to establish that Jacob Peters is still active. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

He is more active recently. I added two additional probable IP. Perhaps there are many more. They come from Los Angeles area, like some of his previous accounts, i.e. 76.191.230.8 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)). There is a bunch of IP addresses right here. As about behavior, he has a history of "protecting" specifically Menghistu [25]. If this is insufficient, I can give more diffs. My very best wishes (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given the history, he may have some named accounts as well. BTW, there is at least one editor who persistently reverts one of the articles to the version by Jacob Peters [26] [27], [28] [29] (with assistance from sockpuppet account created by yet another User:Mukadderat - [30]). My very best wishes (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mukadderat was indef blocked in 2010 per a case which is now known as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Altenmann/Archive. Mikkalai is another name that was used by Altenmann. User:Altenmann was unblocked by Arbcom in May 2012 and has been recently active. My Very Best Wishes, if you think User:PatGallacher is related to Altenmann that would be serious, so you should consider expanding your comment. PatGallacher has been around since 2005 and has 28,000 edits. My Very Best Wishes, regarding this comment from April 2012 I don't think you are still under a 1RR/week limit on anything. Check the WP:ARBEE log. EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not really know. This is just an observation. Actually, I have only one suggestion. If these IP addresses do not belong to Jacob Peters (I think they do), I would suggest to check them against Altenmann, based on editing history here, similar POV/bias and geographic location (same area unless I am mistaken). Actually, Altenmann asked me at one point to help him against "communist propagandist" editor Jacob Peters. However, at the same time, he supported Jacob Peters by reverts like here. This is something he did in other articles, like here, e.g. reverting himself using his alternative accounts. But that was long time ago. May be he is now reformed. Yes, I know that my editing restriction has expired. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My Very Best Wishes, I'm afraid you may be diluting your impact by bringing in tangential matters for which you don't have much evidence. PatGallacher's edits seem to be in good faith. Not everyone who disagrees with you on an EE article is a sock. I suggest you might remove any charges (in your above posts) which depend on diffs that are more than one year old. It is still fair to mention old SPI cases (more than one year old) that could be relevant. EdJohnston (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I simply provided all information and my opinion that might be related to this case. I do not make any charges with regard to any editor. I do not care that much if anyone, including IPs by Jacob Peters will or will not be blocked. If you find my comments unhelpful, you are welcome to remove them. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • These are getting stale, and there is no simple answer. Likely linked, but they are a couple of banks of static IPs over DSL. The one article is the main problem, which I've semi protected for a month as a stop gap to prevent the disruption. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
08 May 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

Similar POV and article subjects, similar behavior like here, similar geographic location. Even if they are not socks of Jacob Peters (I think they are), IP 75.51.167.249 and already indeffed user EverlastingGaze are definitely the same person. My very best wishes (talk) 04:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

76.191.230.178 (aka 75.51.170.140) is old and given mostly for verification. This is certainly the same user based on editing and sources used by him in Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union. My very best wishes (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
75.51.167.249 = 75.51.174.240 because he just made revert using new IP in support of edit made from his older IP [31].

76.124.119.23 = 75.51.171.217 because they both continue edit war in Genocides in history, exactly as it was in the previous SPI report [32].

  • New development. New account, "Volunteer Eddy" (see above), suddenly appeared at approximately the same time when edits by IP accounts were reverted. Based on set of articles they edit (Holodomor, collectivization, and Chinese communism subjects), POV, use of sources, and behavior (head-on edit war), this is either Jacob Peters or someone else who wants to appear as Jacob Peters. My very best wishes (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, Volunteer Eddy is not a new user, and their choice of username (a la "Volunteer Marek") was hardly a coincidence.My very best wishes (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please compare: Rediscoverer and Volunteer Eddy: "In 1960, an estimated 60% of agricultural land in northern China received no rain at all." Same thing in both cases.
  • Conclusion. I think we need checkuser to establish if Volunteer Eddy/Rediscoverer/Rediscoverer2 is related to Jacob Peters (all other IPs and accounts). Regardless, I think Volunteer Eddy/Rediscoverer/Rediscoverer2 should be sanctioned as a disruptive SPA who reverts others and creates multiple accounts.My very best wishes (talk) 02:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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

  • I reported the above mentioned IP back in February: [34] Since then he returned to make a sneaky large rv in March, claiming non-existing consensus, which I overlooked: [35] The editing behavior is the same as described above, he promotes pro-Soviet POV and refuses to engage in any discussion. I believe the only solution is permanent semi-protection of the articles he is active at, in particular Stepan Shahumyan, because it is not possible to watch them 24/7, and he returns to rv when no one is watching. Grandmaster 18:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are political extremists guarding the holodomor page, & their page is full of POV extremism. They "enforce" this by accusing dissenters of being sock puppets of this guy.
In other words, they can't argue how their POV language is acceptable. eg, if you change their language to NPOV, first they'll revert it usually with no explanation. Next, they'll offer irrelevant rants which don't explain how POV language is acceptable. And finally, they'll label you a "sock puppet."
As others explained:
> "this article is controlled by fanatical West-Ukranian nationalists who ignore reality"
> "This page is a parody of historical analysis. As already pointed out, it's is controlled by fanatics who are determined to preserve the victim status of the Ukrainians vis-a-vis the Russians, and especially the 'Jewish-Bolshevik hordes'" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volunteer Eddy (talk • contribs)
That's absurd. Hint: You guys suspect so many ips/accounts of being sockpuppets that you can say practically anyone posts "in a similar approximate time period" to others you suspect. That's no more legitimate than a witch trial.
And what's the *specific* criteria needed to accused someone? Just posting on the topics of communism/socialism/etc. And what's very revealing, is that you guys are trying to target me for wanting to use NPOV language. I honestly suspect you're attempting (in order to protect your POV) to censor people advocating writing in a NPOV.
Volunteer Eddy (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought/think that this is most likely Jacob Peters as well, but a couple things give me pause. One, he chose articles and topics where I've reverted Jacob Peters before. Two, he obviously chose a name to parody mine. Three, his POV is fairly unique and it matches JP. However. I know JP pretty well by now and this Eddy guy comes off more... immature? JP's grammar and syntax tends to be pretty good, this guy's more given to random raving and ranting (with weird bolding of text and the like). And usually JP "used" reliable scholarly sources (though he'd lie about what was supposed to be in them) but this guy is using junk from the internet like this.
I dunno, maybe Wikipedia's making me paranoid, but this sort of looks like someone pretending to be a sock of Jacob Peters, just to cause trouble (again, choice of username is telling). Or JP's getting lazy and sloppy.Volunteer Marek 17:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


> [I'm starting to see he writes differently than some other guy, therefore, instead of considering that I am totally utterly wrong, maybe he's a guy pretending to be a sockpuppet]
You skipped considering that you're entirely wrong, & just making up stuff.
> [junk sources]
That had two sources. The first (showing the deaths) is a fine one: disastercenter.com. How you're picking on the latter source (a list website showing a comparison) is just nitpicking.
Volunteer Eddy (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


> this is a "disruption only"
That's provably false. Here's two examples where I added new information:
1. "the USSR succeeded in becoming a major agricultural grower & exporter for many decades.[1]"
      • 2. " In July 1959, the Yellow River flooded in East China. According to the Disaster Center,[2] the flood directly killed, either through starvation from crop failure or drowning, an estimated 2 million people, while other areas were affected in other ways as well. It could be ranked as one of the deadliest natural disasters of the 20th century.[3]"
      • > and their choice of username (a la "Volunteer Marek") was hardly a coincidence.
Your unprovable subjective opinion (that having a similar user name to someone else proves guilt) is irrelevant. I already explained it to V.Marek:
"Have you considered, that maybe before I realized you were a repeat rule-breaker who should be banned from wikipedia, that I was positively inspired by your username?"
I'm really amazed to see that wikipedia has such nonsense going on. Again: this is no better than a witch trial.
Volunteer Eddy (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
> [Please compare: rediscoverer & volunteer eddy]
Copy & pasting info from one page to another (where it's lacking) does not prove two people are the same.
Plus, even if you were right (that I'm really a guy interested in guitars, Sigur Ros, engines, light-bulbs, etc,) all that'd do is paint me as an entirely different person than who you accuse.
Basically, it's irrelevant whether I'm also "rediscover." In a logical system, people wouldn't be put on a list because of some baseless unprovable gut-feeling/suspicion of another wiki user.
> Cases:: JP is laughing
If you realize I'm not the same person, wouldn't the logical thing to take my name off this list? And maybe every other user who simply edited on communism/socialism issues?
> [Having a similar username to someone proves this guy is someone else!]
Again: that's *witch trial*-like nonsense. Under that logic, almost everyone on wikipedia could be *assumed* guilty.
Volunteer Eddy (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Clerk declined - Only one account that is not stale (including the archives). We can't link IPs to accounts here and even if we could I'm skeptical that it would do anything without a history of sleepers. Semiprotection seems better here, but I'll let someone else make a decision on the named accounts. Rschen7754 08:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: I've gone through and done some aggressive protection and one block based on the IPs edits. I haven't reviewed the registered accts. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 02:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: I've blocked Volunteer Eddy for edit warring on Holodomor, haven't ruled him in or out as a sock, although it is interesting. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 03:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Looking closer, I agree that a CU isn't warranted. The only registered account that isn't already blocked that has convincing enough evidence is Volunteer Eddy. The others could just as easily be incidental. It is late, I will review tomorrow, or another admin can indef block if they see enough connection with Eddy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 03:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: The overall behavior, styles (even after trying to change their style) plus edits like [36] and [37] as well as other convince me that Eddy is the same person as Jacob. As such, I've changed his current block for edit warring to an indef block for sockpuppetry. I have not blocked the others as the degree of certainty isn't sufficient to draw a definite conclusion. The Rediscoverer accts don't seem to qualify as an abuse of multiple accounts at this time, since there isn't any attempt to hide the fact that they are linked. Closing without prejudice to consider those accounts at a later date if new evidence surfaces. Closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 14:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?country=su&commodity=wheat&graph=exports
  2. ^ "The Most Deadly 100 Natural Disasters of the 20th Century".
  3. ^ "Top 10 Deadliest Natural Disasters". 7 September 2007.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jacob_Peters/Archive&oldid=1142567185"