Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:Jaredsacks

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

Jaredsacks

Jaredsacks ( 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 14:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Suspected sock puppets
Evidence submitted by Wizzy… ☎
Comments by other users
  • I was the user who originally opened a case here, at the time it was suggested that I request a Checkuser but unfortunately in South Africa almost all IP addresses are dynamic, (and they even change during session), apart for certain businesses. So a checkuser might not reveal much. The only evidence is the similar edit pattern, (and the sudden activity all at the same time, all using the same edit pattern), by all the users listed, but those are probably not strong enough evidences in themselves. As for the claim(s) of harassment, I'd like to see some evidence of this, apart for the one report I am not sure I ever dealt with any of the listed users directly. (unsigned comment by User:FFMG)
  • contributions has made another (long) comment, which I have placed at on a sub-page of this. Wizzy… ☎ 10:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • One would have a lot more sympathy for Jaredsacks if in addition to moaning about the accusation against him, he also acknowledged that the evidence against his political mate Sekwanele being part of a sock-puppetry scheme is very strong. Instead of picking on Lal Salaam as a non-sock-puppet based on available evidence (I agree), what does he have to say about Bjorn Martiz, Inkani, Richard2704 in which the evidence is very very strong? C'mon Jaredsacks, if you want fairness, also denounce the unfairness of Sekwanele et al in using sock-puppetry to advance your common cause! Indigenousname (talk) 11:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Indigenousname ( talk) 11:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments by accused party
  • Please, i'd like to clear my name as soon as possible. I'm tired of being harassed by Wizzy. Please let me know what steps I need to take to prove that I am not one of the accused. Thanks Jaredsacks ( talk) 17:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I was wondering if there could be an update as to what is going and why this is going so slowly. Also just to help move things along, I wanted to point out that it many of these accusations seem arbitrary. While I agree that myself and Sekwanele come from a similar viewpoint and sometimes make similar edits, there are other accusations of sock puppetry that seem to be completely unrelated and i'm not sure why they are being added. For instance, user Lal Salaam has made one edit on the Anti-Eviction Campaign website while making numerous edits mostly on left politics in France and India. There are a lot of 'leftists' out there. What makes the accusers thing that Lal Salaam is connected to me? Then there is the user Wopko, (s)he has made one edit on the Anti-Eviction Campaign website of very little importance. Thats all (s)he has done. How is that person related to me? What evidence is there that this person is connected to me other than (s)he editing the same article? If I wanted to edit that sentence, I would have done it with my own username. Why would a create a username just to edit that one sentence? Has a usercheck been done on these users? do they show any similarity to me at all? Jaredsacks ( talk) 18:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments by clerks, checkusers and patrolling admins
  •  Clerk note: formatted for SPI Mayalld ( talk) 08:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • fish  CheckUser is not for fishing Please cut down the number of suspected sockpuppets, you can't really list all the users that edited the same articles than Jaredsacks. I marked some accounts that are very old (more than 6 months). -- lucasbfr talk 14:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Having looked around at other cases, I realise that checkuser cannot be used on accounts older than 30 days. My intent was not to fish, my intent was to demonstrate a pattern of editing from multiple accounts and anons, where the anons all came from telkom ADSL space. Wizzy… ☎ 14:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  •  Clerk note: as already mentioned by Lucasbfr, this case seems to be based on little more than "people who hold a similar POV", rather than any firm evidence that any particular account is a sock of Jaredsacks. This scattergun approach, of making dozens of accusations, and hoping that one will be right is hugely wasteful of the time of Checkusers, admins and clerks. I am going to delist this case now. If you still believe that socking is going on, please feel free to relist, but if you do so, you MUST include diffs as evidence for each alleged sock. Mayalld ( talk) 09:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Conclusions

 Delisted for reasons noted above. Mayalld ( talk) 09:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. 
Mayalld (
talk) 
09:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
reply



Report date November 7 2009, 05:40 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by FFMG

User Sekwanele was banned for been a sock of Jaredsacks, the new user, Sekwanele_2 is following the same edits pattern as Sekwanele and the username is very similar. FFMG ( talk) 05:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
First, Sekwanele is not even blocked, and never has been. Second, that account hasn't edited since January so checkuser is unlikely to be helpful. Are there are more recent Jaredsacks socks to check against? Wknight94 talk 02:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Oops, my bad, when I saw Sekwaneles page I, (wrongly), thought he had been blocked and created a new account Sekwanele_2 to evade the block.
I just confused the sock notice with a block notice. FFMG ( talk) 04:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC) reply

 Clerk note: There is no intersection of edits between Sekwanele and Sekwanele_2, nor is there one between Jaredsacks and Sekwanele_2. The block logs look clean, so I don't see avoiding scrutiny as a reason to use a different account. If they are the same person, then it doesn't look like there is abusive sock puppetry going on, and it seems that Jaredsacks and Sekwanele are abandoned. MuZemike 04:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Conclusions

 Clerk note: No action taken per above. MuZemike 00:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jaredsacks/Archive&oldid=325507734"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:Jaredsacks

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

Jaredsacks

Jaredsacks ( 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 14:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Suspected sock puppets
Evidence submitted by Wizzy… ☎
Comments by other users
  • I was the user who originally opened a case here, at the time it was suggested that I request a Checkuser but unfortunately in South Africa almost all IP addresses are dynamic, (and they even change during session), apart for certain businesses. So a checkuser might not reveal much. The only evidence is the similar edit pattern, (and the sudden activity all at the same time, all using the same edit pattern), by all the users listed, but those are probably not strong enough evidences in themselves. As for the claim(s) of harassment, I'd like to see some evidence of this, apart for the one report I am not sure I ever dealt with any of the listed users directly. (unsigned comment by User:FFMG)
  • contributions has made another (long) comment, which I have placed at on a sub-page of this. Wizzy… ☎ 10:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • One would have a lot more sympathy for Jaredsacks if in addition to moaning about the accusation against him, he also acknowledged that the evidence against his political mate Sekwanele being part of a sock-puppetry scheme is very strong. Instead of picking on Lal Salaam as a non-sock-puppet based on available evidence (I agree), what does he have to say about Bjorn Martiz, Inkani, Richard2704 in which the evidence is very very strong? C'mon Jaredsacks, if you want fairness, also denounce the unfairness of Sekwanele et al in using sock-puppetry to advance your common cause! Indigenousname (talk) 11:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Indigenousname ( talk) 11:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments by accused party
  • Please, i'd like to clear my name as soon as possible. I'm tired of being harassed by Wizzy. Please let me know what steps I need to take to prove that I am not one of the accused. Thanks Jaredsacks ( talk) 17:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I was wondering if there could be an update as to what is going and why this is going so slowly. Also just to help move things along, I wanted to point out that it many of these accusations seem arbitrary. While I agree that myself and Sekwanele come from a similar viewpoint and sometimes make similar edits, there are other accusations of sock puppetry that seem to be completely unrelated and i'm not sure why they are being added. For instance, user Lal Salaam has made one edit on the Anti-Eviction Campaign website while making numerous edits mostly on left politics in France and India. There are a lot of 'leftists' out there. What makes the accusers thing that Lal Salaam is connected to me? Then there is the user Wopko, (s)he has made one edit on the Anti-Eviction Campaign website of very little importance. Thats all (s)he has done. How is that person related to me? What evidence is there that this person is connected to me other than (s)he editing the same article? If I wanted to edit that sentence, I would have done it with my own username. Why would a create a username just to edit that one sentence? Has a usercheck been done on these users? do they show any similarity to me at all? Jaredsacks ( talk) 18:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments by clerks, checkusers and patrolling admins
  •  Clerk note: formatted for SPI Mayalld ( talk) 08:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • fish  CheckUser is not for fishing Please cut down the number of suspected sockpuppets, you can't really list all the users that edited the same articles than Jaredsacks. I marked some accounts that are very old (more than 6 months). -- lucasbfr talk 14:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Having looked around at other cases, I realise that checkuser cannot be used on accounts older than 30 days. My intent was not to fish, my intent was to demonstrate a pattern of editing from multiple accounts and anons, where the anons all came from telkom ADSL space. Wizzy… ☎ 14:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  •  Clerk note: as already mentioned by Lucasbfr, this case seems to be based on little more than "people who hold a similar POV", rather than any firm evidence that any particular account is a sock of Jaredsacks. This scattergun approach, of making dozens of accusations, and hoping that one will be right is hugely wasteful of the time of Checkusers, admins and clerks. I am going to delist this case now. If you still believe that socking is going on, please feel free to relist, but if you do so, you MUST include diffs as evidence for each alleged sock. Mayalld ( talk) 09:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Conclusions

 Delisted for reasons noted above. Mayalld ( talk) 09:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. 
Mayalld (
talk) 
09:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
reply



Report date November 7 2009, 05:40 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by FFMG

User Sekwanele was banned for been a sock of Jaredsacks, the new user, Sekwanele_2 is following the same edits pattern as Sekwanele and the username is very similar. FFMG ( talk) 05:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
First, Sekwanele is not even blocked, and never has been. Second, that account hasn't edited since January so checkuser is unlikely to be helpful. Are there are more recent Jaredsacks socks to check against? Wknight94 talk 02:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Oops, my bad, when I saw Sekwaneles page I, (wrongly), thought he had been blocked and created a new account Sekwanele_2 to evade the block.
I just confused the sock notice with a block notice. FFMG ( talk) 04:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC) reply

 Clerk note: There is no intersection of edits between Sekwanele and Sekwanele_2, nor is there one between Jaredsacks and Sekwanele_2. The block logs look clean, so I don't see avoiding scrutiny as a reason to use a different account. If they are the same person, then it doesn't look like there is abusive sock puppetry going on, and it seems that Jaredsacks and Sekwanele are abandoned. MuZemike 04:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Conclusions

 Clerk note: No action taken per above. MuZemike 00:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jaredsacks/Archive&oldid=325507734"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE