Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JonnyBonesJones

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mtking (talk | contribs) at 03:20, 14 January 2013 (→13 January 2013: further). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

JonnyBonesJones

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


13 January 2013

– A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.

Suspected sockpuppets

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strikeforce:_Marquardt_vs._Saffiedine&action=history. The IP address is doing the same exacty consistant undoing of entries. He also refuses to use the talk pages and ignornes warning just like the original JonnyBonesJones does. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UFC_150&action=history LlamaAl talk does the exact same counter editing. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UFC_152&action=history LlamaAl has made a point to issuing Barnstars to the previouslly banned account (JonnyBonesJones and confirmed sockpuppet Jadesnake) without any apparent justification. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andreas_Kraniotakes When we have afd discussion, they follow one another with the same failed arguments, which happens to be the same failed arguments that JonnyBonesJones used as well as his confirmed sockpuppet JadeSnake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Antony_Rea Willdawg111 (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

  • I don't know if the accused are sockpuppets or not, I'll leave that up to the CU. I would like to comment on basing the sockpuppet accusations on the AfD discussions mentioned. When I look at both of those discussions I see a number of editors using the same reason to delete and I don't believe they're all sockpuppets. Papaursa (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous. I'm not a scokpuppet. --LlamaAl (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I assert that JakeJr is a sockpuppet of johnnybonesjones based on this obvious patttern. Come on, Jakejr, jadesnake, Jake the Snake Roberts anyone? And now that I have been calling him out for a bit he has decided to lay low and pick off fringe martial arts topics such as here, and here

Please look at these afd logs and you will see that the accused are clinging to the same thing, nearly word for word. coincidence maybe. But look here here here here here here . I'm not contesting those deletions. It just seems odd to see the same people using the same tired arguments in unison. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not seeing it at all with LlamaAl or Poison Whiskey, and would suggest that Willdawg111 either gives more diff's or withdraws the accusation. Different story with Jakejr think that there is enough to warrant a CU on that account (and have requested it) and also a check for sleeper accounts as JBJ has used them before (I also still feel that the is a strong link to a prior account as per the archive). IP address is moot as the CU won't link and has not taken part in AfD so nothing much to go on. ✍ Mtking ✉ 03:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    further to that I have struck LlamaAl, if you check the archive a CU has confirmed that there is no link less than a week ago. ✍ Mtking ✉ 03:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JonnyBonesJones&oldid=532969526"