Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jacob Peters: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Cases:: rm own comments that are probably not especially relevant right now
Line 42: Line 42:


76.124.119.23 = 75.51.171.217 because they both continue edit war in [[Genocides in history]], exactly as it was in the previous SPI report [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jacob_Peters/Archive#04_November_2012].
76.124.119.23 = 75.51.171.217 because they both continue edit war in [[Genocides in history]], exactly as it was in the previous SPI report [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jacob_Peters/Archive#04_November_2012].

*Question. If these IPs indeed belong to Jacob Peters or another indefinitely blocked account (e.g. EverlastingGaze), do not you think that administrators should do something about them? And if administrators are not going to do anything, can I and other users ''consider'' them IP accounts of a blocked/indeffed user and act accordingly? [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 12:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
::@re. I left them a notice [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:75.51.174.240&diff=prev&oldid=554303415]. If this is all we can do, let's close the case. It seems that reporting suspicious IPs does not make any sense, does it? Or maybe they should be reported to ANI? [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 17:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
:::If they want to edit controversial subjects and revert other contributors, they must open named account. Otherwise this goes against the spirit of WP:SOCK. Perhaps we need a special policy for users who work from mobile devises with floating IP numbers? One should probably ask at talk page of WP:SOCK. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 17:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
*OK, based on ''behavior'', location, set of articles and other evidence so far, (a) this is indeed Jacob Peters, and (b) he continue to disrupt the project using multiple IP addresses, which falls under this definition in [[WP:SOCK]], ''Editing under multiple IP addresses may be treated the same as editing under multiple accounts where it is done deceptively or otherwise violates the above principles.''. Please tell me if you disagree. Thanks, [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 12:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


*New development: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbb23&oldid=555499274#Disruptive_IP]. Perhaps he operates in a tandem with another IP sockpuppet.[[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 05:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
*New development: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbb23&oldid=555499274#Disruptive_IP]. Perhaps he operates in a tandem with another IP sockpuppet.[[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 05:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:14, 21 May 2013

Jacob Peters

Jacob Peters (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

08 May 2013

– An SPI clerk has declined a request for CheckUser, and the case is now awaiting a behavioural investigation.


Cases:

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

Suspected sockpuppets

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

76.191.230.178 (aka 75.51.170.140) is old and given mostly for verification. This is certainly the same user based on editing and sources used by him in Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union. My very best wishes (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
75.51.167.249 = 75.51.174.240 because he just made revert using new IP in support of edit made from his older IP [1].

76.124.119.23 = 75.51.171.217 because they both continue edit war in Genocides in history, exactly as it was in the previous SPI report [2].

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

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

  • I reported the above mentioned IP back in February: [4] Since then he returned to make a sneaky large rv in March, claiming non-existing consensus, which I overlooked: [5] The editing behavior is the same as described above, he promotes pro-Soviet POV and refuses to engage in any discussion. I believe the only solution is permanent semi-protection of the articles he is active at, in particular Stepan Shahumyan, because it is not possible to watch them 24/7, and he returns to rv when no one is watching. Grandmaster 18:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are political extremists guarding the holodomor page, & their page is full of POV extremism. They "enforce" this by accusing dissenters of being sock puppets of this guy.
In other words, they can't argue how their POV language is acceptable. eg, if you change their language to NPOV, first they'll revert it usually with no explanation. Next, they'll offer irrelevant rants which don't explain how POV language is acceptable. And finally, they'll label you a "sock puppet."
As others explained:
> "this article is controlled by fanatical West-Ukranian nationalists who ignore reality"
> "This page is a parody of historical analysis. As already pointed out, it's is controlled by fanatics who are determined to preserve the victim status of the Ukrainians vis-a-vis the Russians, and especially the 'Jewish-Bolshevik hordes'" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volunteer Eddy (talk • contribs)
That's absurd. Hint: You guys suspect so many ips/accounts of being sockpuppets that you can say practically anyone posts "in a similar approximate time period" to others you suspect. That's no more legitimate than a witch trial.
And what's the *specific* criteria needed to accused someone? Just posting on the topics of communism/socialism/etc. And what's very revealing, is that you guys are trying to target me for wanting to use NPOV language. I honestly suspect you're attempting (in order to protect your POV) to censor people advocating writing in a NPOV.
Volunteer Eddy (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought/think that this is most likely Jacob Peters as well, but a couple things give me pause. One, he chose articles and topics where I've reverted Jacob Peters before. Two, he obviously chose a name to parody mine. Three, his POV is fairly unique and it matches JP. However. I know JP pretty well by now and this Eddy guy comes off more... immature? JP's grammar and syntax tends to be pretty good, this guy's more given to random raving and ranting (with weird bolding of text and the like). And usually JP "used" reliable scholarly sources (though he'd lie about what was supposed to be in them) but this guy is using junk from the internet like this.
I dunno, maybe Wikipedia's making me paranoid, but this sort of looks like someone pretending to be a sock of Jacob Peters, just to cause trouble (again, choice of username is telling). Or JP's getting lazy and sloppy.Volunteer Marek 17:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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


> this is a "disruption only"
That's provably false. Here's two examples where I added new information:
1. "the USSR succeeded in becoming a major agricultural grower & exporter for many decades.[1]"
      • 2. " In July 1959, the Yellow River flooded in East China. According to the Disaster Center,[2] the flood directly killed, either through starvation from crop failure or drowning, an estimated 2 million people, while other areas were affected in other ways as well. It could be ranked as one of the deadliest natural disasters of the 20th century.[3]"
      • > and their choice of username (a la "Volunteer Marek") was hardly a coincidence.
Your unprovable subjective opinion (that having a similar user name to someone else proves guilt) is irrelevant. I already explained it to V.Marek:
"Have you considered, that maybe before I realized you were a repeat rule-breaker who should be banned from wikipedia, that I was positively inspired by your username?"
I'm really amazed to see that wikipedia has such nonsense going on. Again: this is no better than a witch trial.
Volunteer Eddy (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
> [Please compare: rediscoverer & volunteer eddy]
Copy & pasting info from one page to another (where it's lacking) does not prove two people are the same.
Plus, even if you were right (that I'm really a guy interested in guitars, Sigur Ros, engines, light-bulbs, etc,) all that'd do is paint me as an entirely different person than who you accuse.
Basically, it's irrelevant whether I'm also "rediscover." In a logical system, people wouldn't be put on a list because of some baseless unprovable gut-feeling/suspicion of another wiki user.
> Cases:: JP is laughing
If you realize I'm not the same person, wouldn't the logical thing to take my name off this list? And maybe every other user who simply edited on communism/socialism issues?
> [Having a similar username to someone proves this guy is someone else!]
Again: that's *witch trial*-like nonsense. Under that logic, almost everyone on wikipedia could be *assumed* guilty.
Volunteer Eddy (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  1. ^ http://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?country=su&commodity=wheat&graph=exports
  2. ^ "The Most Deadly 100 Natural Disasters of the 20th Century".
  3. ^ "Top 10 Deadliest Natural Disasters". 7 September 2007.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jacob_Peters&oldid=556046150"