Jim 2 Michael ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)

05 January 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

• X2023X ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • SPI Tools

• X2023X began editing on 2023 a month ago. Looking at the writing style and the type of edits made, it is evident that the account is being operated by the same person as Jim Michael 2, who was topic banned from WP:YEARS pages as a result of a community discussion.

• This person has three different accounts, Jim Michael, Jim Michael 2 & Jim 2 Michael, with the stated reason being loss of login details. Jim 2 Michael stopped editing recently, with the last edit made on 13 Nov 2023. X2023X's first edit was 18 Nov 2023, five days later.

• Compared to Jim Michael 2, both accounts have comparable edit summaries that often assert prior consensus using similar language. The provided samples demonstrate similar events with nearly identical edit summaries (X23: 1, 2, 3 , JM: 1, 2, 3).

• There is a also a consistent pattern of bulk edits on the page Portal: Current Events that involve linking and formatting, following a distinctive style (X23: 1, 2, 3 , JM: 1, 2, 3).

• There is a frequent action of page moves accompanied by similar edit summaries. Notably, one of the initial actions performed by X2023X was a series of page moves (X23: 1, J2M: 1, JM2 1, something a brand new user is unlikely to know about. 33ABGirl ( talk) 03:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

• After 33AB let me know about this, though X2023X has stated he is not Jim 2 Michael on his talk page, I personally suspect this to be Jim Michael. Procedurally though the title of this SPI should be @ Jim Michael, since this is his oldest account (the order of accounts seems to be @Jim Michael, @ Jim Michael 2, @ Jim 2 Michael, @ User:X2023X). The behavior to me looks extremely similar to the behavior both prior to and after Jim Michael 2's TBAN from Years articles (see WP:Editing restrictions), where the ANI discussion found that Jim had repeatedly perpetuated a false consensus of implementing international notability as a standard of inclusion over due weight policies. This, and similar opinions on implementing WP:NOYEAR, also behavior similar between Jim Michael 2 and X2023X, are what convince me (pending any new discoveries) that all four accounts are linked.
  I feel compelled to note an encounter earlier last year between me and @ Wikianon2023, who per their contribs page, harassed me with comments such as In light of your recent comments, you will be perpetually patrolled as part of an independent panel's investigation regarding your ethics and Your ethics are questionable and are the subject of a private inquiry. You have insulted this editor and tacitly threatened them – comments which later led to the account being indef'ed by RickinBaltimore. I have a feeling that last year's YEARS ANI thread was what caused this behavior, mostly proven (again see contribs) by the positive messages left by Wikianon2023 on TheScrubby's talk page, who also generally sided with Jim Michael during his tenure when editing YEARS articles. If permissible and such behavior found to be reasonable, I would like to request a CU to investigate. Thanks, InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 04:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

• I changed the case status to request CU. The last month or so of J2M's edits should be fresh enough. Behavioral evidence is compelling enough that this connection is worth looking into. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 06:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Technically  Possible,  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation; the behavioural evidence looks fairly convincing to me but I'd prefer a second set of eyes on it from someone who hasn't been staring at IP addresses all day. Spicy ( talk) 17:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• This looks conclusive to me. The behavioural evidence is very obvious (e.g. [1]), and the technical evidence can easily be explained by a change in ISPs (they geolocate to the same area). – bradv 05:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply
•  Blocked and tagged. Closing. – bradv 05:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

07 February 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

• 23November23 ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • SPI Tools

A new account created three months ago with a similar editing pattern like these Jim Michael accounts on talk pages and on articles about events. This account has now become really active today which I noticed on the 2024 Mogadishu market bombing article being not only tagged with the Current Events banner but was created by this new user. The talk page for 2024 in Somalia has the WikiProject banners alphabetized the way the Jim accounts would. Jim 2 Michael, the previous sock that has been blocked, would do the same thing and would regularly remove the tiny spacing under the talk page section headers where a discussion would like this recent edit on the 2010s talk page and the November 10, 2023 edit on the Israel–Hamas war protests talk page.

And the page move which I requested by reverted for the Acid attack article was what I thought a new user trying to help but I see upon further evidence that this is the same user who had been topic banned on year articles and is trying to circumvent the bans on their previous accounts. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 15:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

It's lucky that I looked up the history of the accuser's edits to find out about this as I'd not otherwise know about it. Informing the accused is obviously a good idea & should be required.

I'm new to editing Wikipedia as an account holder, but experienced as an IP editor. I've created many articles on other websites; as an experienced amateur writer I've given advice to friends about creating articles on various sites.

Following common practice performed by thousands of editors is far from being the unique quirk that you claim it is, let alone a form of wrongdoing. Talk page project banners are very often in alphabetical order, so I assume that's typical practice. Spacing evenly is I assume likewise typical.

I'm not aware of anything being significantly wrong with my editing, which is clearly proficient & I believe is all within site rules. If there are faults in any of my edits, I'm happy to receive constructive criticism; everyone makes mistakes. Obviously, I'm not happy to receive a false accusation. Editors are meant to assume good faith & be welcoming.

I'm continuing to improve articles & I hope my accuser does likewise, rather than excessively scrutinising me on a vague suspicion that I'm someone else. 23November23 ( talk) 16:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC) reply

No false accusations have been presented. You as the accused should provide evidence to the contrary. What does other websites have to do with Wikipedia? A new account and anyone who has editing as a random IP is highly unlikely would make page moves on the basis of WP: Concise/Precise. Citing the previous initial report investigation:

"There is a frequent action of page moves accompanied by similar edit summaries. Notably, one of the initial actions performed by X2023X was a series of page moves (X23: 1, J2M: 1, JM2 1, something a brand new user is unlikely to know about."

And you're not in any position to call me out on improving articles and the suspicion isn't vague to which evidence has been provided. And your response and style of formatting your response is similar to that of the sockpuppet. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 17:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Your accusation against me is false, as well as against the rules which say to assume good faith & to not bite the newcomers (I'm a newcomer as an account editor). You haven't said why you didn't inform me of your accusation against me. I assume that it's usual to do so, even if it isn't required.

Page-moving is simple & commonplace; WP:PRECISE & WP:CONCISE comes up as one of the pre-loaded options. They're far from obscure or difficult to find. I've been IP editing on & off for years & have edited on other sites with similarities to Wikipedia & have performed page moves on other sites.

I have friends whom I've given advice to when they edit & create on various sites. It's relevant that I mention this because you're saying that I'm pretending to be new despite being clearly experienced. That's a false argument to try to advance, because I've made it clear that I have years of experience here as an IP editor & elsewhere as an account holder.

I'm correctly calling you out on wasting time on harrassing me here rather than editing productively, which you know you could & should be doing instead. I don't know what you mean by the format of my response being similar to someone else's, but I find it strange that you scrutinise other editors & look for comonplace, perceived similarities rather than spending your time & energy improving articles. My focus is improving articles for ther benefit of our readers. Why would you rather waste a lot of time & energy making a false accusation than improving articles, going so far as to find vague similarities & producing diffs to try to suport your flimsy assertion? There's no-one I'd do that for, but then I don't hold grudges or look for anyone on Wikipedia. I only want to improve the site's coverage & I didn't expect a hostile response to making my first account & moving a few articles to better titles. 23November23 ( talk) 17:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Here is 23November23 enforcing the exact same rule on the same page as Jim Michael 2 about the number of deaths in an event (a hallmark of Jim Michael's editing): Jim Michael 2 in January 2023 and 23November23 in November 2023. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 17:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC) reply

That's a clearly stated requirement for that section - a death toll of at least 100. It's nothing like a 'hallmark'. Unlike you, I don't scrutinise or compare editors' edits, let alone make accusations based on perceived similarities. I'd much rather be productively editing. 23November23 ( talk) 17:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I had noticed the same thing. But the pages moves and spacing edits really reminded me more of the Jim edits. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 17:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I've been IP editing on & off for years but nothing reminds me of anyone's editing. I've never compared any editors on any of the sites I've been on to anyone, let alone claimed that one person is operating multiple accounts. I don't follow or obsess over any particular editor(s). No editor lives rent-free in my head; I focus on content & only seek to improve. I don't care if an editor is my next-door neighbour, a colleague, a stranger, someone I used to dislike, a long-lost relative or Lord Lucan. You both clearly have a major grudge against someone you think about very frequently, whom you believe has caused you a great deal of suffering as well as psychological wounds which haven't healed, so you spend a lot of time & effort trying to find him. However, you're both barking up the wrong tree & in any case you should let it go. Wikipedia isn't a place to seek vengeance.

Millions of people have edited this site. By chance as well as by following rules, common sense & other editors' examples, many thousands must have significant similarities. You really want to spend your day harrassing someone based on what you perceive to be similarities between edits & editors? Do you have a list of editors you dislike, whom you look for every time you're on Wikipedia, whom you try to find things to accuse of & supposed evidence to back your claims? You think it a step in the right direction to harrass someone who's improving & creating articles rather than improve & create articles that are of interest to you?

I see from your editing history that you frequently undo other people' edits, despite a high proportion of them being improvements. Many people (not only the editors involved) will find that to be annoying. Why do you undo many people's improvements? Do you know that it's annoying & counter-productive? Do you follow any of those editors in order to undo their improvements? 23November23 ( talk) 17:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The comments made here by 23November23 are very similar in style and content to those made by another Jim 2 Michael sock, User:X2023X, in discussions ( 1, 2, 3) on their block. It is worth noting that the account names bear a striking similarity to each other. 33ABGirl ( talk) 04:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

•  Possible Same huge ISP as the archive, so you'll need to make a final determination based on behaviour. Courcelles ( talk) 15:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Behavioural evidence looks pretty clear to me.  Blocked and tagged. – bradv 17:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply