Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Js82

Js82

Js82 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Js82/Archive.

06 November 2015

– A checkuser is in the process of checking relevant users.

Suspected sockpuppets

• Docxx (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.
• Editor interaction utility

Js8, an editor whose primary editing interest is in Sikhism related articles, was banned from Indian religion articles by @SpacemanSpiff: here and immediately stopped editing. A few days later, Docxx appeared with the same interest and pushing the same ideas about Sikhism using the same sources (cf., [1] and [2]). regentspark (comment) 14:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

• It does look like it to me, but there's an off chance that it's someone else "called in" (happens on Indian caste/regligion articles). I had placed a WP:AE topic ban on Js82 and he disappeared during his WP:ARCA appeal and this account was created right after that. There are also a couple of IPs in the archive that were self-confirmed in the past (ignore the 86 one, that's not him), and one of which I had blocked earlier. —SpacemanSpiff 15:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

- As I had stated in my first comment on Wikipedia at Sikhism talk page, there is no evidence really I can share here to "fight my case". The IPs between our accounts are shared and the topics of interest are shared (although there is no "shared agenda"). I do not understand the checkuser policy of Wikipedia, but it did seem to indicate potential privacy concerns. To prevent any breach of my privacy, I request that no checkuser be conducted. I would take that and get out of here (if that is the required). Docxx (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Docxx:, sorry to say this, but that is the reason why Sardarjee jokes are famous. I think now you understood your dispute on that article was not worth. I hope you will take this comment lightly. Have happy real life. --Human3015^TALK  18:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

• Docxx, it sounds to me like you're admitting you're Js82's sock, but would rather not have a CheckUser look, because you're worried about your privacy. Is that it? If you're not the same person, please explain how you can possibly know anything about Js82's IP. I mean, you state that "The IPs between our accounts are shared". How do you know that? Please respond above with a convincing explanation, or I will in fact block you as a sock. To the SPI clerk: I don't actually think a CheckUser is needed here, especially since the user seems to fear it. (Incidentally, Docxx, you don't in fact need to worry about a CheckUser breaching your privacy in any way, as CheckUsers are under very strict instructions not to share any private information, such as what IP an account is using.) Bishonen | talk 17:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC).

---