Random account 39949472 (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:

• Requests for checkuser/Case/Random account 39949472

Report date May 14 2009, 06:12 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Evidence submitted by WhatamIdoing

I believe that User:Academiic is the latest User:Jessica Liao sockpuppet. The original case is at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jessica Liao.

Jessica Liao is (was) a student with special needs in Great Neck, New York. She tends to edit articles related to her school experience, plus some pop culture/celebrity articles. Her syntax is characteristic, her grasp of special education is characteristically odd, and her user page always has what Bradeos Graphon called a "myspace-esque" look. Additionally, she has never quite grasped this "verifiability" thing, but that's true for a large number of inexperienced and/or ineffective editors. When she's reverted, she usually complains on your talk page instead of on the article's talk page. Unfortunately, it results in errors that would be funny if not so sad, like her repeated assertions that students with serious emotional disturbances are placed in special education classes solely because the schools don't want to pay for specialized ED programs (such programs certainly do exist), and that somehow, simultaneously, these students, despite being enrolled in special ed classes, are not special ed students because they have the "wrong" kind of disability.

I'm familiar with her work in education-related articles, so I'll focus on that. (User:Academiic has edited only about half a dozen non-education articles anyway.) These are the edu-related articles that User:Academiic has edited in ways that overlap very suspiciously with known socks:

Here's the complete list of education-related articles edited by this user and that don't have a known (to me) history of Jessica Liao socking:

• Summit School (Queens, New York) (2 edits)
• Winston Preparatory School (1 edit)
• Homeschooling in the United States (1 edit)
• Governess (1 edit)
• School corporal punishment (1 edit)
• Roosevelt High School (Hempstead (town), New York) (2 edits)

More than seventy percent of User:Academiic's education-themed articles have a strong association with Jessica Liao. A good number of these articles were created by a Jessica Liao sock; some of them (e.g., Saddle Rock Elementary School, John F. Kennedy Elementary School) have been edited essentially by no one except the Jessica Liao socks (and various admins reverting her).

Interestingly, one of her few non-article edits in the current accounts is Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Teddy bear, which involves User:Academiic proposing a photo uploaded by known sock User:I'm so bored as a featured image. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

All of my edits have been great if you just give me a chance. I don't think that you should accuse inexperienced users. We will get better as time goes by. I don't intentionally vandalize articles. I try to make the article better for everyone. --Academiic (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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 WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot (talk) 06:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed for CU attention. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 14:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that most recent account used (that I identified, going through the suspected sock category) is Typetrust (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks), which was blocked by Dekimasu as a sock on Feb 25, 2009. A definitive link between the sockmaster and most other suspected socks is probably not possible, but Typetrust should still be within range and CU should reveal any other accounts in use. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 14:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed Academiic and Deskaheed match Typetrust/Liao. Dominic•t 05:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

User accounts blocked indefinitely. --Kanonkas :  Talk  19:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Report date June 19 2009, 18:45 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• Kate432 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Harionlad (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Evidence submitted by WhatamIdoing

It's basically the same behavior as all the previous cases. Kate432 has already been blocked, but Harionlad is active at the moment. I'd be happy to share specific red flags, but I think we're seeing a bit of "adaptation" based on previous SPI and RFCU explanations -- e.g., Jessica has abandoned a characteristic naming scheme after about a dozen accounts were identified and blocked that way -- so I'd rather not do that in public if it's not necessary.

I do hope that someday Jessica will quit evading the ban (which was imposed for socking, not for vandalism or incivility) and just ask for permission to have a single legitimate account. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I sent an e-mail to someone at ArbCom and ask to appeal the ban for permission to have a single legitimate account. I find it ridiculous that I am banned for socking when I am not using two accounts for personal gain. In the beginning, I was socking because I didn't know. Now I know, so can you cut me some slack? Harionlad (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

CheckUser requests

Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )

Current status – Endorsed for Checkuser attention.    Requested by WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

•  Additional information needed: Can you provide additional evidence in the form of diffs? If you have evidence that can't be made public, e-mail it to functionaries-l at lists.wikimedia.org and note it here. Thanks, Nathan ^T 18:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just sent a message. Diffs are ugly in e-mail, so I tried to be more descriptive than diff-heavy. The two accounts together have less than 50 edits, so looking at them all wouldn't take very long if you were determined to do so.
    • The e-mail message got bounced as "Remote host said: 550 Mailing list functionaries-l does not exist." Any suggestions? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I thought it followed the same list naming convention as all the rest... The address is functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org. My mistake. Nathan ^T 02:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried again, and it hasn't bounced in the last few minutes, so it's probably okay. I hope that none of the links broke when I cleaned up the text formatting; let me know if it's a problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The email came through OK. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we still need additional information? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed No. I'm endorsing the request to push it through. One of the active CU's here might check this section, and check the e-mail you sent and get back to us. Best. Syn 17:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

•  Confirmed CU not needed, self-admitted, see the below info is pasted from my talk page:

• Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Jessica_Liao

Those are the accounts.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jessica_Liao

I had an appeal but it was about giving me a second chance. I realize that wasn't the case. Now I am asking for permission to have a single legitimate account as I don't make vandalism or incivility.

Harionlad (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me? Any advice would be helpful. Harionlad (talk) 21:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar much with this case. I have to find out what is going on. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone told me to go to ArbCom if I want to ask for an appeal of the ban. I asked two users already but they are probably busy since they didn't respond. So now I am asking you. You are my only hope. Harionlad (talk) 01:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you have to go the Arbitration Committee to ask on my behalf for an appeal of my ban? Harionlad (talk) 01:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit you're a block-evading sock? — Rlevse • Talk • 02:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I put on my user page that this is an alternative account. I don't have two accounts right now so I don't see the big deal why they are saying I am socking. Harionlad (talk) 03:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because indef'd and banned users are not allowed to edit, not even with one account. You fail to mention that your appeal to BASC has already been rejected. You can reapply to edit again after one year. I have no choice but to block you and tag your account. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: Jessica needs to wait one year from the date of her latest effort at ban evasion (June 2010, if she doesn't keep creating accounts or editing from anonymous IPs), not one year from the original date, correct? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

submitted, — Rlevse • Talk • 10

41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Report date July 10 2009, 20:46 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Evidence submitted by WhatamIdoing

Please see User:WhatamIdoing/Jessica Liao sock report, and evidence from previous investigations. Jessica is making deliberate (but insufficient) efforts to look different. Dekimasu and I have been watching the account for about ten days now, and I was hoping not to have to hassle with organizing the evidence -- but this string of AfDs is disruptive, and I no longer have any reasonable doubts about the editor's identity, so it's time to shut down this account. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 10 July 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 – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

•  Clerk endorsed MBisanz ^talk 02:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that Jessica Liao is stale, most recent confirmed account is User:Academiic. Nathan ^T 19:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Harionlad was blocked just a couple of weeks ago after a self-admission. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Confirmed that Alchaenist matches Harionlad and Academiic. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked by PeterSymonds. Nathan ^T 00:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

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

Report date October 7 2009, 00:32 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Evidence submitted by WhatamIdoing

Esthertaffet is very probably the latest User:Jessica Liao. In addition to her persistent and remarkable failure to grasp the basics of WP:RS, her interest in dictionary definitions, and her slightly odd syntax, she is showing a keen interest in the same articles as all of the other socks. Here's a small sampling:

• Alternative school, edited by Esthertaffet and about 16 other known or suspected socks;
• Child, edited by Esthertaffet and 10 other known or suspected socks;
• Compulsory education, edited by Esthertaffet and 4 other known or suspected socks;
• Education in the United States, edited by Esthertaffet and 10 other known or suspected socks;
• Hallie Kate Eisenberg, edited by Esthertaffet and 4 other known or suspected socks;
• Inclusion (education), edited by Esthertaffet and 8 other known or suspected socks;
• Inclusive school, edited by Esthertaffet and 12 other known or suspected socks;
• Mainstreaming (education), edited by Esthertaffet and 6 other known or suspected socks;
• Regents Examinations, edited by Esthertaffet and 7 other known or suspected socks;
• Special education, edited by Esthertaffet and 17 other known or suspected socks;

Additionally, Jessica is known to very quietly watch my edits, and a passing comment I made on a page she doesn't frequent, about needing to file another sock report before much longer, resulted, predictably, in her not editing for a few days, until she decided that the danger was past. I'd like a checkuser run primarily to see whether she created any other accounts during those couple of days (and also to keep the IP information fresh, since that's been a problem in previous investigations, and of course to make sure that it's not an innocent non-ban-evading user). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:32, 7 October 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 – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed. Jessica Liao is stale, but some evidence might exist from the July case. Looks pretty self-evident, but CheckUser has been useful in the past. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Confirmed as:

• • Esthertaffet (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Luv4thegame4848 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Flayof (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Legihatp (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Hagadol (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Eivmeidwl (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • WhatamIdoingg (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Brandon (talk) 04:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

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

--Kanonkas :  Talk  14:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Report date October 10 2009, 03:13 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• Jimsteele9999 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 66.31.253.227 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Evidence submitted by WhatamIdoing

You know that I usually let new accounts develop a more significant evidence base before reporting the, to minimize the risk of accusing an innocent user, but I'm going to be a little bolder this round. We just blocked a bunch of Jessica's socks yesterday, and it looks like yet another was immediately created.

• Special school: edited by Jimsteele9999 and 7 other socks
• Talk:Special school: edited by Jimsteele9999 and 3 other socks
• User talk:WhatamIdoing: edited by Jimsteele999 and 3 other socks

The subject of all five edits by this new account is the "resource room" that the last major sock was getting wound up about shortly before she was blocked. Either this "new" user has the worst conceivable luck, or it's yet another Jessica Liao sock. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IP's (recent) edits are highly similar:

• Special school This IP plus 7 identified socks (not counting Jimsteele9999)
• Talk:Special school This IP plus 3 identified socks (not counting Jimsteele9999)

The IP and Jimsteele9999 are "talking to each other" on the talk page (the IP last week, Jimsteele9999 today), and all edits are about resource rooms. As the IP is controlled by Comcast (in the correct region of the US), I assume that the edits from previous years are irrelevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:27, 10 October 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 – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Endorse, even though Jessica Liao is stale, recent accounts from previous CU cases can be compared against. Behavioural evidence is pretty clear here, but from recent SPI cases there may likely be more socks. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 07:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

• Jimsteele9999, Jessicabest9, Maryhudson9, Rudolfschmidt99, JimSteele99, Seymour99999, Seymourglass99999, Georgieblack9999, 66.31.253.227 and Seymour9999  Confirmed as each other,  Unrelated to Liao. Brandon (talk) 08:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

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

Report date November 9 2009, 00:28 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Evidence submitted by Ceranthor

• Zeleb and Alchaenist's (a sockpuppet of Jessica Liao) edits have overlapped.
• Zeleb has been listing Alchaenist's pictures at picture peer review. [1][2]
• Zeleb is editing the same articles as JL and their sockpuppets (William_A._Shine_Great_Neck_South_High_School) - A cursory look through the article's history shows that Jessica Liao puppets Academiic and (suspected spp) Risa1991 also edited the article.
• Zeleb edits from the same school as JL.

• • I don't think this is a DUCK case, so I'd like a CU to review it. I'd like some clarification on whether or not this is a sock. Thanks! ceranthor 00:28, 9 November 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 ceranthor 00:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

• Ceranthor, you can self-endorse cases as a trainee clerk too. Marking this as self-endorsed for you. NW (Talk) 20:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

• Account was blocked two days ago by Alison as a sockpuppet. Brandon (talk) 08:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

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

Report date November 25 2009, 03:26 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Evidence submitted by WhatamIdoing

I don't know that this account is Jessica, but my index of suspicion is rising. Leaving aside flags like linguistic style, 8 out of 11 (73%) Rovea's edits in the article namespace and 18 out of 21 (86%) edits in the article+talk namespace have been made to pages also edited by previous socks. In the mainspace and the associated talk pages, four out of the five pages edited by Rovea overlap with identified socks:

• Compulsory education: Rovea plus four identified socks
• Expulsion: Rovea plus one identified sock
• Special school: Rovea plus six identified socks
• Talk:Special_school: Rovea plus three identified socks

Nearly all of her other edits are either:

1. on pages created by her (such as her user page and two AfD pages)
2. on pages created since her account became fully active two weeks ago (such as the CfD pages) and
3. edits directly and solely related to her efforts to remove special schools from Wikipedia (such as arguing with editors about their opposition to her deletion goals or labeling the ten categories she nominated for deletion).

On the other hand, one edit removed a sentence that may have been added by a Jessica Liao sock (although I didn't check; it just seems like the kind of mistake she would have made), which argues against Rovea being Jessica. I am consequently uncomfortable asking an admin for a block without CU evidence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica logged in and made one edit under User:Alchaenist on 11 Nov 2009 (a little more than 24 hours before Rovea's first mainspace edit). That account might therefore have the most recent information in the logs. My belief at the time -- based on nothing more solid than gut feeling -- was that Jessica might have been logging into as many old accounts she could remember the passwords for, in the hopes of finding one that wasn't blocked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

This is just an attempt to block excellent contributions from being added. Sure I have different perspectives on how to edit an ideal encyclopedia. But that should be tolerated instead of accusing that behavior as well beyond WP:POINTy. I show plenty of competence in editing. Do I move on from my views? Yes. I am not an incompetent editor who never moves on. Editors who bring checkusers based on gut feelings often are accused of harassment. WhatamIdoing has made me feel uneasy during my time on Wikipedia like she was watching every edit I make. This sockpuppet investigation is just harassment, plain and simple.

Therefore, any resemblance between Jessica and I was purely coincidental. Rovea (talk) 15:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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 WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed – Even though I hear quacking, CU has come back negative on one of the cases before. Hence, I think technical evidence would be useful here. MuZemike 08:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

The user edited from two IPs. One is the same university IP used by User:Jessica Liao, the other seems to be the home IP. -- Avi (talk) 03:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

•  Confirmed The following accounts are confirmed as sockpuppets of each other and they include known sockpuppets of Jessica Liao (talk · contribs):
  • Rovea (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Smallkim126 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Esthertaffet (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Luv4thegame4848 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
•  Possible The following editor(s) use the same ISP as above, but a different computer. It may be someone other than the above sharing the ISP via a router, but it is the same computer in use for each of the following editors, so evidence of sockpuppetry exists. Behavioral evidence may need to be analyzed as well.
  • Pjs012915 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Two-face Jackie (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Both sets above used the same static IP, not just the college IP. -- Avi (talk) 03:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Administrator note Rovea and Smallkim126 indefinitely blocked and tagged. The possible socks don't match the editing patterns of Liao, so I don't think they're sock and hence will leave them unblocked. MuZemike 05:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Report date November 29 2009, 20:52 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Evidence submitted by Tedder

New user immediately userpage, edits some school articles, proposes a notable school for AFD, then withdraws nomination and proposes it be moved into the school district article. These are, to AGF, bold moves for a new user, and reminiscent of the Jessica Liao socks. Additionally, the distance from Seaford NY to Great Neck NY (Jessica Liao's area of obsession) is apparently nearby, only about 20 miles (32 km) A CHU may be necessary to confirm this is a Liao sock. I'll leave that up to the clerk/admin. tedder (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Checkuser is not for fishing, which this one seems to be. Tilliego (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 tedder (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

•  Clerk endorsed NW (Talk) 22:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Conclusions

•  Confirmed
  • Tilliego (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Panickyei (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

--Avi (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Both blocked and tagged appropriately. NW (Talk) 23:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Report date November 30 2009, 21:20 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Evidence submitted by WhatamIdoing

I'm sorry if I've jumping the gun, but "Ylrebmik" is "Kimberly" spelled backwards, which is an old pattern for this editor; the edits are to two articles almost entirely written by Jessica Liao's many socks, about schools in her hometown; and the only main-namespace edit defends information [3] added by a confirmed sock, User:Luv4thegame4848.

User:Panickyei, User:Tilliego, User:Rovea, User:Zeleb, User:Esthertaffet, User:Harionlad and User:Academiic are all relatively recent accounts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

I have already declared the connection between Jessica and I on my user page. Ylrebmik (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to provide some details about how you "checked" the IP address(es) and determined that they were also used by User:Jessica Liao (the account)? I don't understand how you could know what IP addresses were used several years ago by that account, unless you are Jessica Liao (the person). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While we are on that vein, what's in it for you to create these sockpuppet accounts? Wouldn't making productive edits be more satisfying? tedder (talk) 00:02, 1 December 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 WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

•  Clerk endorsed NW (Talk) 21:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Clerk declined; blocked per WP:DUCK. NW (Talk) 00:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Conclusions

•  Administrator note Blocked and tagged. NW (Talk) 00:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Report date December 1 2009, 04:12 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Evidence submitted by Assilem

I'm sorry if I've jumping the gun, but "Assilem" is "Melissa" spelled backwards, which is an old pattern for this editor. Why don't I just report myself instead of having WhatamIdoing do it? It saves us both a lot of time. Assilem (talk) 04:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

No CheckUser needed. I'm self-admitting.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Umm... okay then.

 Confirmed Jessica Liao (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) = JPsCrackhead2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) = Assilem (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki).

J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

• Blocked & tagged. Tiptoety ^talk 04:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Report date December 3 2009, 01:38 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Evidence submitted by WhatamIdoing

User talk:WhatamIdoing#FYI indicates a remarkable familiarity with personal information about Jessica, and every single article she's edited has been edited by multiple confirmed socks.

She admits elsewhere that Oyamasan is the same account as Elanaretaina. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:38, 3 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 – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

•  Clerk endorsed. NW (Talk) 01:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are all blocked already, but looking for sleepers... Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, they're all  Confirmed, those listed above. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All accounts that are coming up have already been blocked, as has the range from which Jessica's primarily editing from. I'm going to modify that rangeblock now to be a hardblock, since it appears all the sleepers she's been using have been so stale as to be entirely moldy; if she has any more (which doesn't seem unlikely) they're not going to show up until they cause problems. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Conclusions

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

Report date December 7 2009, 20:00 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• Looklikeicare04 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Evidence submitted by WhatamIdoing

The only edits by Special:Contributions/Looklikeicare04 are eleven changes to the userpage, and -- now a newly minted autoconfirmed user -- a claim at a semi-protected page that Jessica isn't really banned. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:00, 7 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 – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

•  Clerk endorsed. Account has been blocked indefinitely and tagged. However, they are somehow evading a rangeblock that Hersfold placed. Would be useful to see if we could tighten that up. NW (Talk) 20:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, this is annoying. Going to see what's up. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Destatiforze (talk · contribs · block log) blocked indefinitely as a  Confirmed sockpuppet and 198.38.8.0/21 (talk · contribs · block log) hardblocked six months. I missed that IP last time I checked. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Tagged appropriately. NW (Talk) 21:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Conclusions

• Closing and archiving per Hersfold. NW (Talk) 21:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Report date 10 December 2009, 17:46 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• Dahliarose (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• MrMacMan (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Jane8888 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Evidence submitted by Jonathan Keith Gosselin

Dahliarose pretends she has no idea of who Jessica is. She talks to her socks as if they are different users. See Talk:Village School (Great Neck, New York)#Top importance. Her previous sock Tilliego was completely unaware that Jessica was a banned user. I suspect Dahliarose as a sock of Jessica. All Wikipedia users should be aware of banned users. It is the responsibility of the Wikipedia community to be aware of this banned user, Jessica. WhatamIdoing is practically the only one who watches out for her latest socks. At least be on the lookout of any suspicion if you don't know all the banned users. Dahliarose acted like she had no idea. Everyone knew something was up when both editors seems to agree with each other.

In the first investigation, MrMacMan has deliberately reported Jessica just to get her into trouble. He has mentioned possibly private information about Jessica in his future admin report. This could probably be the reason for why he reported her. See User:MrMacMan/future admin report and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jessica Liao. I suspect that MrMacMan is Jessica or her sock. Otherwise how else does he know so much about her? Jessica's previous sock, Assilem which was recently reported herself which was strangely odd behavior since none of her previous socks ever did this.

Jane8888 has provided personal information about Jessica that her previous sock also did. See User talk:WhatamIdoing#FYI where Elanaretaina said personal information as well. For more private information about Jessica: See here: [4] and [5] The second link where Jane8888 filed the case said there was a ban. But during the Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jessica Liao when asked to provide the diff of the community ban against Jessica, no one could answer. Jane8888 had provided personal information about Jessica that was irrelevant to the entire investigation. She could have just said all the multiple accounts were done by her all without the other private information. I suggest an oversight of her private information.

Jessica's user page before projected a provocative persona which I am shocked that no one in Wikipedia over sighted her personal information. (This is why I suspect MrMacMan and Jane8888 as either a sock or Jessica since she previously provided personal information.) After all, Wikipedia is not a social networking website, but a collaborative encyclopedia. She has displayed the name of her school and a list of her interests. She even stated her full name and her family. And also, Wikipedia should consider protecting children's privacy a bit better. This is completely unacceptable to have all of Jessica's private information for all to see. If a random person like me can see this, then you bet a pedophile can see it too. Thankfully she is still alive or is she? Jonathan Keith Gosselin (talk) 17:46, 10 December 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 Jonathan Keith Gosselin (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed including on the filer. Something doesn't look right here. MuZemike 17:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Dahliarose (talk · contribs) is  Unrelated.
• MrMacMan (talk · contribs) is  Unlikely - close, but it's different enough I don't think this is who we're looking for.
• Jane8888 (talk · contribs) is  Stale.
• Jonathan Keith Gosselin (talk · contribs) is  Confirmed to be Jessica Liao - good eye. Now to figure out how she evaded her rangeblocks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also found the following:

• Aaden Jonathan Gosselin (talk · contribs)
• Hannah Joy Gosselin (talk · contribs)
• Madelyn Kate Gosselin (talk · contribs)
• Cara Nicole Gosselin (talk · contribs)
• Katie Irene Kreider Gosselin (talk · contribs)

All blocked and tagged. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm also blocking Two-face Jackie (talk · contribs) and Pjs012915 (talk · contribs) as confirmed. Underlying IP has been blocked as well, it'd already been tagged as a possible sock of Jessica. I've also reissued a rangeblock I placed earlier, as a local IP block was interfering with it. All done here, I think. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Conclusions

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

Report date January 28 2010, 23:33 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• Girafe53 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Evidence submitted by Ryulong

WP:PLAXICO shenanigans. Finds WP:LOBU and a discussion on its talk page related to adding User:Jessica Liao to the list within an hour of the account's creation.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Interesting edits from 'Girafe':

• Resolving WT:LUA discussion ~40 minutes after creating account
• Bringing it up at the same moment on an editor's talk page
• At this point, 9 of 16 contribs are related to Liao. SPA. tedder (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )

Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed Tim Song (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Confirmed - the following accounts;

• Girafe53 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ylime (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Fukedup and photocopied (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

- Alison ^❤ 02:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All three have been blocked/tagged. NW (Talk) 02:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

25 May 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Evidence submitted by WhatamIdoing

Same kinds of edits, same types of articles, and an unusually good memory of conversations that happened last year. Of course, I could well be wrong (and I'd love to have a few more good editors on education-related articles), but... WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

• Something seems rather ducky when comparing to the edits of, say Esthertaffet (talk · contribs). Just saying. Jessica loves sockfarms, so some checkusering may be needed to root out sleepers. --Jayron32 05:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )

Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed, confirmation, sleeper check and IP block. Tim Song (talk) 05:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed, no sleepers, no need for IP block at this point. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

17 June 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• Bryan Fedner (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 69.117.20.128 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Evidence submitted by Jimsteele9999

Bryan Fedner[[6]] seems to be one of another incarnations of Jessica Liao: See the report [7]

Similar editing patterns on obscure topics, very similar edit summary language and pedantic nitpicking all suggest she's back. Jim Steele (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Checkuser request – code letter: CODE LETTER (Unknown code )

Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Jim Steele (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

•  Clerk endorsed - T. Canens (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bryan Fedner account has only edited from one location, which geolocates close to known Jessica Liao socks. It's thus possible, from a technical point of view, but that's all I can say, the data I have shows no overlap.

FWIW, confirmed as Jessica Liao and not yet mentioned in the archive are

• Shaycarl (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Flowerava50 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Both had been already blocked & tagged.

Amalthea 16:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Administrator note Behavioral evidence is convincing. Blocked and tagged. T. Canens (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

30 June 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• 198.38.10.1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Evidence submitted by WhatamIdoing

The usual problems at the usual articles. Jessica is spreading misinformation and disrupting a series of articles because of her inability to read and understand sources.

Additionally, I'd like to suggest that you permanently semi-protect some of her favorite targets, including Special education, Inclusion (education), Tracking (education), and any school that she's attended. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )

Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk declined Well the IP registers to Nassau County Community College and has been used for the past four years. Based on recent IP activity, the user seems to be jumping around here and a block of maybe a week or two might discourage them on this one. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Administrator note Range blocked. It has been blocked several times before, including a checkuser block, so I placed a 3 month AO block on the range. I'm not going to bother protecting the pages right now as I'm not sure there is sufficient activity right now. Feel free to bring it up at RFPP if it becomes problematic. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

28 July 2010

This user contacted me today via IRC (and apparently some other editors and admins) about the WP:Standard Offer, asking if it would apply. It turns out, the users most recent sock was blocked today (well, technically yesterday, since the server uses GMT). The user has vowed to cease all sock puppetry, and is also willing to make amends for disruptive edits. I told the editor to contact me around the middle of December about the "Standard Offer", and we would look in to it more then, as it would be closer to a 6 month point. I also advised the user that they could feel free to read Wikipedia, but they could not edit Wikipedia without getting in trouble any further. I also advised her, that if she saw something that needed to be changed, and it would be a constructive edit, to contact an experienced editor so they could look in to it.

Early today, she contacted me again, in regards to her edits to Special education, in which she added a section that was blatant copyright violation, and also mis-cited (cited a book, instead of the website where she got the information). I've tagged the section, and added a comment to the talk page of the article.

The user appears to be trying to make amends for their actions, in an attempt to return in 6 months. I've noticed several blocks, and dozens of socks, but for now, I'm willing to assume good faith, for now. I'll keep tabs on this user, and all their contribs, to see if this continues. Hopefully, the user will continue to show good faith, by notifying us of disruptive edits we may have missed.

I will post anything else that comes up with this request.

NOTE: Sorry if this is the wrong location for this. If it needs to go elsewhere, feel free to move it, and let me know where! Thanks! --ANowlin: talk 05:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Clerk note: We are aware of Jessica's history (hence the indef block). There is really nothing more that can be done here, and seeing as you have not reported any additional socks I am going to close this request. I appreciate the additional information, but in the future this might better be documented on the cases talk page, or sent as an email to an admin who deals with Jessica on a regular basis. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 05:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, she socked again today, which is what I figured again. Oh well. Thanks Tiptoety. --ANowlin: talk 22:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

05 November 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Evidence submitted by Secret

Look at the fourth edit, clearly a single purpose account of a likely banned user. Secret ^account 00:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Without a doubt, this is her. Blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 00:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

11 December 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

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

• User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

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

Possible sleeper account. Jessica has been trying now for months to get herself on the list of banned users on wikipedia, she even attempted to do so on ED. Now, this account which is years old, comes to this page that they've never, ever edited, and reverts Jessica's removal from the list. Seems rather odd, doesn't it? — Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 02:14, 11 December 2010 (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 moved the case over here from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jessica Liao, and I've endorsed it based on past history. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • At first glance, I'd say  Unrelated. But I'd like another checkuser to take a look, as I think a proxy is being employed here. TNXMan 03:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Unrelated – I'm sorry, but unless she fled the U.S., this is not her. –MuZemike 03:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm closing this. It could maybe be meatpuppetry or something, or other off-Wiki discussion. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

11 January 2011

Suspected sockpuppets

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

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

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

The above mentioned accounts have been active on special education, an article that receives editing from a few regular bonafide editors and an infmaous sock and her various incarnations. Edit summaries are similar to those of Jessica, the information added and deleted also follows the trivial patterns of her editing habits and her sources are rudimentary at best, all of which Jessica was guilty of before. I am tempted to say WP:DUCK here but I will leave that in someone elses more capable hands. That should not be hard to find! Thanks. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 12:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Jimsteele9999 (talk) 12:56, 11 January 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

• Merged case from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xcueta. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Administrator note Blocked and tagged per WP:DUCK. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

16 January 2011

Suspected sockpuppets

• Mohamed Demidow (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Xcueta (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

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

Newly created account Contribs as of January 16, making near-identical recently to edits by User:Xcueta, shown to be banned User:Random account 39949472. WP:DUCK case. oknazevad (talk) 04:18, 16 January 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

• Merged the case from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mohamed Demidow. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Blocked Mohamed Demidow as a likely sock, but adding a CU to confirm and check for sleepers. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Confirmed, and another account, Lindsay Hopp (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) as well. Other checkusers, please see my email to the Functionaries email list. Risker (talk) 06:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• All are blocked/tagged. -- DQ (t) (e) 23:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

26 May 2011

Suspected sockpuppets

• Jacquelyn Pindor (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mosessonlester (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Andre Mazzola (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

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

Duck-y SPAs for Jessica Liao's agenda for the "Methods of provision" section at Talk:Special education. Liao also joined the English Wikipedia channel on IRC and linked to the discussion. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 22:27, 26 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 - Blocked all, 2 quacked, Jacquelyn Pindor is likely behavioral wise. Request confirmation & sleeper check. -- DQ (t) (e) 22:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Likely. IPs are different, but some share parent company, and other technical evidence is more similar than coincidence alone would imply. No obvious sleepers. -- Avi (talk) 02:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Updated the tags to reflect the findings. We're done here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

03 September 2011

Suspected sockpuppets

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

• Scottmd8821 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Peychuchtk (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This request by Oaldari is virtually identically to this request by Mredric, who was blocked and reverted by MuZemike for being a sockpuppet of Random account 39949472. Requesting CU for a sleeper check. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Each one of these accounts has made their only edits to Talk:Special education and seems to share the same focus as previous Liao socks. Pretty cut and dried really, but CU may be useful for checking for sleepers, and I'm not an expert in this particular LTA case. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

•  Clerk declined - Sorry - as far as I can tell, the master and its socks have all gone stale. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Clerk endorsed I'll endorse to see if these accounts are all the same. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• All accounts, including Mredric, are technically  Unrelated, and  Unlikely to be Random account 39949472. Admins considering blocking may need to base decisions on behaviour. AGK [•] 22:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Noting that AGK is the newest member of the AUSC, and that this SPI was carried out in part as a teaching exercise. Concur with AGK's findings. Risker (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Clerk note: Muzemike had blocked all of these already, and I'm going to agree with that based on behavioral grounds. I'll close for now. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

16 April 2012

Suspected sockpuppets

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

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Every article edited by User:Theblumbox match the editing history of those discussed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Random account 39949472/Archive (with the exception of the relatively new article Salmon Fishing in the Yemen and Helen Keller Middle School, which this user created, both of which are about related subjects). The notable focus on both the same exact particular schools and the subject of special education matches the master account's MO perfectly, and the master account has an extensive history of creating sockpuppets for this purpose. - SudoGhost 19:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC) SudoGhost 19:20, 16 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

• Blocked by MuZemike for socking, so i'm not going to look into this to see if it's the same editor. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]