The Imboredsenseless ( talk · contribs) account was apparently created for the sole purpose of posting on my talk page about an editor I conflicted with a few weeks back. This looked super-suspicious, so I checked to see if anyone else had tried to connect User:Rjensen to a Conservapedia editor before. (I googled site:en.wikipedia.org "Rjensen" "Conservapedia"; for whatever reason I can't copy-paste Google search results on my iPad.) This came up first. The username of the new account is also a pretty clear indicator of sockpuppetry, and the main account, 36hourblock ( talk · contribs), very recently emerged from a two-year absence, which gels with the new account's stating that they "use Wikipedia every now and then". Even if this wasn't 36hourblock, it is obviously someone, and if it is 36hourblock it seems likely that they've done this before, so requesting CU. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 00:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC) Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 00:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Additionally, the Conservapedia account he claims is Rjensen hasn't edited Conservapedia since April 2010. If the scenario presented (this person looks at the behind-the-scenes workings of various Wikis but rarely gets involved, and happened to notice someone with a similar username, and happened to notice a conversation between me and User:Curly Turkey in which Rjensen's name wasn't actually used except in the source code, and posted on my page more than a week later) is accurate, Iamboredsenseless has the most incredible memory imaginable. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 12:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
And do SPIs no longer automatically ping the suspects? Iamboredsenseless also presented another somewhat elaborate explanation for how they came across this SPI (see below), which seems a bit weird. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 12:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Noticed Hijiri88 had posted here as I was awaiting his response. I first saw RJensen's name yesterday after Hijiri88 made a comment about him on a page I was reading. I know the name from Conservapedia which is why I mentioned this to Hijiri88. Conservapedia promotes non encyclopedic work: for example denies science, and gives fundamentalist opinions on every topic. I then asked Hijiri88 did he know about this. I didn't know RJensen had already stated he had used Conservapedia so that seems fair enough. He's been open about coming from a conservative, Christian fundamentalist angle. I've asked Hijiri88 has he seen RJensen exhibit Christian fundamentalist views on here. I'm not of course saying Wikipedia should be left wing, liberal etc, what it should be is encyclopedic, which Conservapedia isn't for the most part (see the site's articles on evolution, on homosexuality etc). See here, http://www.conservapedia.com/Sexual_immorality with homosexuality and pedophilia in the same sentence. Imboredsenseless ( talk) 10:40, 14 November 2016 2016 (UTC)
This edit is much like the harassment (targeting Rjensen) for which aptly-named 36hourblock is blocked. Chris Troutman ( talk) 18:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Insufficient evidence. Closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Only a few days after Chie one was blocked, RichardHarris22 is registered and their first edit is to somewhat obscure article Jim Marshall (businessman), which a Chie one sock has shown interest in the past: [11]. This made me tiny bit suspicious, so I took a look at the Editor Interaction Utility: [12]. The number of articles they have in common is unbelievable, so I'm convinced. Compare also edit summaries with confirmed socks: "cite" [13] [14], "bare URL" [15] [16], etc. Sro23 ( talk) 23:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
See Editor Interaction Analyser here, the intersection with past socks is too frequent to be coincidence. Examples include article one: [17] [18] [19], article two: [20] [21] [22], article three: [23] [24] [25] Last time a number of sleepers were discovered also. Sro23 ( talk) 01:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
See admission. So it looks like I misidentified most of the accounts here as belonging to The abominable Wiki troll, when in reality those were Chie one socks. I'm sorry about that, there's a great deal of overlap between the two sockfarms. Sro23 ( talk) 06:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
This case is being reviewed by Sir Sputnik as part of the clerk training process. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on their Talk page or on this page if more appropriate.
New account, has suspiciously high overlap with previous sockpuppet User:DC80, similar minimal use of edit summaries: [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] Sro23 ( talk) 03:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
See below. Bbb23 ( talk) 21:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
The Imboredsenseless ( talk · contribs) account was apparently created for the sole purpose of posting on my talk page about an editor I conflicted with a few weeks back. This looked super-suspicious, so I checked to see if anyone else had tried to connect User:Rjensen to a Conservapedia editor before. (I googled site:en.wikipedia.org "Rjensen" "Conservapedia"; for whatever reason I can't copy-paste Google search results on my iPad.) This came up first. The username of the new account is also a pretty clear indicator of sockpuppetry, and the main account, 36hourblock ( talk · contribs), very recently emerged from a two-year absence, which gels with the new account's stating that they "use Wikipedia every now and then". Even if this wasn't 36hourblock, it is obviously someone, and if it is 36hourblock it seems likely that they've done this before, so requesting CU. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 00:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC) Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 00:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Additionally, the Conservapedia account he claims is Rjensen hasn't edited Conservapedia since April 2010. If the scenario presented (this person looks at the behind-the-scenes workings of various Wikis but rarely gets involved, and happened to notice someone with a similar username, and happened to notice a conversation between me and User:Curly Turkey in which Rjensen's name wasn't actually used except in the source code, and posted on my page more than a week later) is accurate, Iamboredsenseless has the most incredible memory imaginable. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 12:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
And do SPIs no longer automatically ping the suspects? Iamboredsenseless also presented another somewhat elaborate explanation for how they came across this SPI (see below), which seems a bit weird. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 12:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Noticed Hijiri88 had posted here as I was awaiting his response. I first saw RJensen's name yesterday after Hijiri88 made a comment about him on a page I was reading. I know the name from Conservapedia which is why I mentioned this to Hijiri88. Conservapedia promotes non encyclopedic work: for example denies science, and gives fundamentalist opinions on every topic. I then asked Hijiri88 did he know about this. I didn't know RJensen had already stated he had used Conservapedia so that seems fair enough. He's been open about coming from a conservative, Christian fundamentalist angle. I've asked Hijiri88 has he seen RJensen exhibit Christian fundamentalist views on here. I'm not of course saying Wikipedia should be left wing, liberal etc, what it should be is encyclopedic, which Conservapedia isn't for the most part (see the site's articles on evolution, on homosexuality etc). See here, http://www.conservapedia.com/Sexual_immorality with homosexuality and pedophilia in the same sentence. Imboredsenseless ( talk) 10:40, 14 November 2016 2016 (UTC)
This edit is much like the harassment (targeting Rjensen) for which aptly-named 36hourblock is blocked. Chris Troutman ( talk) 18:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Insufficient evidence. Closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Only a few days after Chie one was blocked, RichardHarris22 is registered and their first edit is to somewhat obscure article Jim Marshall (businessman), which a Chie one sock has shown interest in the past: [11]. This made me tiny bit suspicious, so I took a look at the Editor Interaction Utility: [12]. The number of articles they have in common is unbelievable, so I'm convinced. Compare also edit summaries with confirmed socks: "cite" [13] [14], "bare URL" [15] [16], etc. Sro23 ( talk) 23:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
See Editor Interaction Analyser here, the intersection with past socks is too frequent to be coincidence. Examples include article one: [17] [18] [19], article two: [20] [21] [22], article three: [23] [24] [25] Last time a number of sleepers were discovered also. Sro23 ( talk) 01:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
See admission. So it looks like I misidentified most of the accounts here as belonging to The abominable Wiki troll, when in reality those were Chie one socks. I'm sorry about that, there's a great deal of overlap between the two sockfarms. Sro23 ( talk) 06:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
This case is being reviewed by Sir Sputnik as part of the clerk training process. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on their Talk page or on this page if more appropriate.
New account, has suspiciously high overlap with previous sockpuppet User:DC80, similar minimal use of edit summaries: [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] Sro23 ( talk) 03:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
See below. Bbb23 ( talk) 21:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.