BlackJack

BlackJack (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date January 3 2010, 17:49 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets

BlackJack has previously admitted to using sockpuppets (User:Bart Maverick and User:The bowling of a ghost) [1]. No action was taken against BJ or either of these socks.

Evidence submitted by 85.210.127.158

85.210.127.158 (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Is it claimed that both accounts !voted in AFDs? If so, please give details. Otherwise I'm seeing an unwise use of alternate accounts rather than deception or disruption. Rhomb (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't vote in the same AFDs, but the alternate account did vote in 10 AFDs which according to policy is inappropriate use of an alternate account. --212.139.99.159 (talk) 10:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.
Named accounts blocked. TNXMan 03:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date February 3 2010, 01:44 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Burpelson AFB

Sarastro1 has the exact same interests as BlackJack (cricket). That account has also engaged in apparent sockpuppetry in support of BlackJack [12], and edited BlackJack's talk page to insert a "Retired" template [13].

The next two accounts are admitted BlackJack socks. [14] No checkuser required for those, but should be blocked anyway per DUCK or whichever policy is pertinent.

The IP has edited the same articles BlackJack is interested in as well as BlackJacks userpage and 2 of his socks userpages [15].

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk declined per WP:DUCK and the self-admissions. No CU necessary. –MuZemike 01:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. I originally hardblocked the IP for 1 week, but I was unaware that this the IP is from British Telecom – not a good idea to hardblock. –MuZemike 01:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro1 has been unblocked by Yellowmonkey who apparently ran a Checkuser and says the accounts are unrelated. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date February 14 2010, 17:47 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by 85.210.135.210
Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

I have nothing to do with BrownEdge or FirstComrade so I would welcome that CU to finally silence the WT:CRIC crowd who think only one person in the world could dare criticise BlackJack. --85.210.127.21 (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Endorsed for Checkuser attention.    Requested by 85.210.135.210 (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed to look for links between:

SpitfireTally-ho! 10:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI, I've blocked JamesJJames indefinitely as a sockpuppet. I came to SPI to file a report and saw that someone beat me to it. I've been looking through the two editors' contribution history and the connection is pretty clear, as well as JJJ becoming active after being idle for years to edit right after BlackJack's block. -- Atama頭 21:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 24 2010, 09:31 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by 88.111.59.103

During a discussion over the reliability of BlackJack's personal website as a source which was moving towards it failing to meet Wikipedia rules, this IP popped up with a lengthy defense of BlackJack and his site. The knowledge he displays and manner of his writing are very much akin to that of BlackJack. He refers to BlackJack/Mr Leach in the third person but BlackJack has done this in the past with his socks.[18] This is an attempt to create an illusion of support and if a CheckUser find this to be BlackJack I would expect his indefinite block he previously received for using sockpuppets to be re-instated. --88.111.59.103 (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has made lengthy posts below and I'm fearful that with all his diversion tactics, the actual facts of this case might be overlooked. So please see the ANI post BlackJack made two weeks ago: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive608#IP_User:88.111.62.210.3F, the similarities with the first post the IP made below are clear to see. --88.111.59.103 (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

I have been directed to this page by User:BlackJack who anticipated this petition following my edit earlier. He has been expecting an attack of some nature since the appearance of IPs 88.111.62.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 88.111.44.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 88.111.52.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 88.111.45.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 88.111.46.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in the WP:RS discussion and on the talk pages of some of the interested parties.

The petitioner is a serial user of IP addresses who, on 31 March, was using 88.111.62.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and was blocked for disruptive editing. This was a culmination in a campaign that had been going on for some time by a person who is effectively waging a war against BlackJack. The same person was active in the same sort of disruption (i.e, edit warring and removing sources) since 31 March using:

He is now abusing WP:RS to try and sway opinion against BlackJack as part of his campaign.

BlackJack has actually resigned from WP but he is interested in the WP:RS discussion and has asked me to keep an eye on it. I am a friend of his and I have a relevant interest in the WP:RS because I am a member of the ACS, an organisation that is key to the discussion taking place. Our friendship began when BJ himself was in the ACS.

The person who has raised this petition is here to cause trouble by picking on one site member and seeking to discredit him at every turn. He has already been caught out by one admin on 31 March and it is time something was done with his IP range 88.111.x.x to block him completely. BJ believes he has a grudge against him because of an edit reversion several months ago so you can see what sort of an individual he is to carry on something like that for so long.

By the way, I have no desire to continue with WP myself and will probably go once the WP:RS has completed but you need to protect other site users against 88.111. --81.129.117.41 (talk) 10:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the above response is better evidence than I could possibly have given as to why this IP address is that of BlackJack. He just so happens turns up here, he just so happens to be a friend of BlackJack, he just so happens to be a member of ACS, he just so happens to know the history of a supposed campaign against BlackJack and he just so happens to know what BlackJack thinks. The above post is very similar to one that BlackJack posted on WP:ANI a couple of weeks ago and in both that post and this one he edited them minutes later to include userlinks. [19] [20]
Actually, I think I should answer some of these points.
  • "He just happens to turn up here" is explained by the fact that Jack has been stalked and hounded by this individual for several weeks and recognised his work as soon as he appeared on the WP:RS. I agreed to go onto that page to strike a balance as this person has been canvassing and Jack anticipated some action like this or at the admins page based on past experience which is all held in the site logs, I understand.
  • "He happens to be a friend of Jack". Well, yes, I'm sure there are numberless people on this site who have friends also on the site. Actually, I have about half a dozen friends who use this site.
  • "He happens to be a member of ACS". For my sins. And so are a thousand other people but not Jack, who resigned three years ago. One of the other people in the WP:RS is the former editor of the ACS journal so what is so startling about that given it is a discussion about cricket and it concerns the ACS?
  • "He knows and thinks, etc." Yes, I do know. I have listened to what Jack has told me and I know him well enough to say what he thinks but I do not agree with everything he says as I have made clear on WP:RS.
  • "Similar posts"? I cribbed from other posts so that I could best display the IP user link which had been causing me a few problems as it won't come up blue. Other users seem to use the same format so what does this prove?
Clearly, this individual is trying to twist things because he assumes that anyone who deals with Jack must be Jack himself. I am told that he engineered the dismissal of another user a couple of months ago who had merely discussed cricket with Jack on their two talk pages, but he was reinstated soon afterwards. That shows what sort of vindictive individual the petitioner is.
What on earth are you talking about BlackJack? I've never dismissed any user, is this another fiction you've invented? --88.111.59.103 (talk) 13:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re his post above at 12:47, that is actually where I got much of my IP address list from as Jack has shown me several of the topics that he has become embroiled in with this person. It is interesting that he admits that he is the person involved on that occasion, especially as it clearly shows that he is the same person that the administrator banned on 1 April. Jack has actually resigned from Wikipedia as I said earlier and the reason is that the site cannot protect genuine users from persistent attackers of this type. He doesn't blame the admins as it is becoming clear to me that you have an impossible task. As I said before, I merely wished to ensure fair play in the WP:RS which has become prejudiced with this individual's canvassing tactics and attempts to introduce irrelevant issues. 81.129.117.41 (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What canvassing tactics and what irrelevant issues? BlackJack you say these things and have nothing to back it up with, that's why people ignore you. --88.111.59.103 (talk) 13:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This, this and this are all examples of canvassing for support in the WP:RS. As for the irrelevant issues, what on Earth is all this about a pre-1890 championship which is not on the site concerned. Has he got that from somewhere else or has he dreamed it up?
And I do not think people on here ignore BlackJack who has made a major contribution to this site, unlike a person who hides behind rotating IP addresses and takes advantage of a weakness in the site structure that allows him to keep up a persistent attack against someone who once had the temerity to revert one of his edits. Jack says that is probably what started this childish vendetta. People do not usually ignore me either, given that I am a police officer, but that is irrelevant here and I am merely replying to the stupid taunt above. This site is something else, it really is. --81.129.117.41 (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
None of those links show canvassing, the first two are neutral requests for further participation in the discussion, the third was me giving details to Cameron Scott of your deal with 'Richard Daft' and providing accurate information about the false Observer and Daily Mail claims you made. The pre-1890 championship was on your site until this morning and here's a link to prove it, it's even still on your website's index. BlackJack you have tried numerous times to get me blocked by making posts at WP:ANI and have never managed to, that's why I conclude you are ignored, the reason is that admins on this site are interested in facts and evidence something which you are never able to provide. "person who hides behind rotating IP addresses" pot, kettle and black are words that come to mind. Now Deskana has asked for the bickering to stop so please take his advice. --88.111.34.89 (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think he should explain why he is fearful that things will not go his way and why he several times tried to remove my evidence which is absolutely relevant given the motive of this individual? 81.129.117.41 (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not on defence here so why BlackJack has posted so much about my editing really makes no sense. Points of correction I would make is: a) I don't see why opening up a SPI is deemed an attack, b) my 'campaign' as BlackJack calls it, was to make sure there was a neutral discussion with regard his use of his own personal website, c) 'abusing WP:RS' is a completely unfounded slur, at WP:RS I have presented the information as I see it and a number of other users agree with me, the only 'user' who agrees with BlackJack just so happens to be this IP, d) I'm not here causing trouble my single aim is to ensure that a neutral discussion is had on the reliability of BlackJack's personal website, e) I don't have any grudge against BlackJack because of an edit reversion months ago, once again BJ is inventing facts just like when he accused SGGH of being a sockpuppet. --88.111.59.103 (talk) 11:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This is a repeat of the post I have just left on Deskana's talk page, where 88.111 has continued his disruptive edit-warring campaign against a single user:

Hi Deskana. I have followed 88.111's posts from the SPI page to here and I would like to assure you that I am not BlackJack but I am a personal friend of his, as I said earlier. Now, I would be prepared to accept that, as a personal friend, there is a conflict of interest in my taking part in the WP:RS discussion but I would make two points about it that justify my action in the interests of fair play.

One is that I have tried to be objective and have mentioned areas in which BJ and I disagree but the differences do not alter the fact that he is a subject expert and that needs to be made clear, and why. Second point is that the discussion is effectively being hijacked by 88.111 and another person who is pursuing an agenda.

It should be a discussion by genuine site members who are interested but it is being prejudiced by 88.111 who has been campaigning on the talk pages of other users to try and gain support for his end, even though he is ignorant of the subject under discussion. I have therefore joined in to strike a balance and ensure that essential points are not lost. It is called ensuring fair play, something that a serial stalker and troublemaker like 88.111 has no interest in.

His use of IP addresses amounts to single purpose usage and I would think that is not something the site would approve of. I have been given the following details of his IP activities and if you check the contribs in every single post he has made, you will see that he has a single purpose which is to discredit someone who has been a major contributor to the cricket and philately projects on this site.

Please study these IP edits and see for yourself:

Frankly, I think it is disgraceful that this site enables people like that to pursue campaigns of invective. I am sure there is a way that IP ranges can be blocked and I certainly believe that should be done in this case. However, that is not your problem and I appreciate the common sense way you have dealt with this matter. I have said my piece and will go now. Thank you. 81.129.117.41 (talk) 12:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And there are more IP addresses here used by the same person with the intention of waging war and effectively operating a single purpose account, which cannot possibly be acceptable. I found these by looking at the contributions of 88.111.62.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), under which he was banned for a time and in this post there is the following list of earlier usages by him:
I have no doubt that this is the tip of an iceberg as the person here is clearly a very determined individual with a deep-seated grudge that borders on some kind of psychosis. He clearly believes that anyone who deals with Jack is Jack. I am advised that the user whom he wrongfully had blocked (mentioned above) was User:Sarastro1. Absolutely ridiculous. --81.129.117.41 (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"psychosis"? I think the person who was blocked for abusing numerous sockpuppets and pretending to be so many different people is more likely to be suffering from a mental illness. I had nothing to do with the blocking of Sarastro1 and you know that BlackJack, it was Burpelson AFB who put him in one of your previous SPIs. --88.111.59.103 (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by BlackJack

I had hoped that I would not be drawn back into this. My friend using 81.129.117.41 (lets call him Joe) came into the RS discussion because he is a current ACS member and his participation is necessary to get across the importance of the ACS and similar cricketing publications in terms of the subject matter. One of the reasons I wanted him in there was because of canvassing by the 88.111 troll whose history of subversive activities has been listed above by Joe using material I have shown him. Please bear in mind that 88.111 is a known troll who has already been banned for his disruptive editing, which amounts to a hate campaign against me personally, as an examination of his "contribs" clearly shows. It was very easy to predict what he would do once he saw Joe's RS edit and all we had to do was keep watches on WP:ANI and this page so that we were ready to intervene in case he managed to convince some well-meaning admin that he is an oh-so-innocent messenger reporting apparent wrongdoing. Unfortunately, it is a weakness of the site that people like him can get into processes like this or ANI and be taken seriously.

The 88.111 troll is trying to assert that anyone who agrees with me must be me and that it is unlikely if not impossible for two friends to be using the site and helping each other out. All that I want is a fair discussion at RS by people with a genuine interest. Joe has a genuine interest in the subject; the troll has a genuine interest in me.

To clear up confusion about the missing link which is so important to the troll, I was working on my site yesterday morning and I decided to remove that page because I want to do some more work on it. Joe looked at the site later and commented in RS that the page has gone, so he was merely pointing out the site as is to stop people being sidetracked by the troll about a supplementary item which is of minor importance.

Finally, Joe's IP address 81.129.117.41 is in Cheshire, where he lives. My IP address is 86.138.10.2 which is in Yorkshire. The locations are about 100 miles apart. ----Jack | talk page 04:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

I realise you are trying to be fair but what you have here is a petitioner who is himself a serious offender who was blocked less than a month ago for doing what he is still attempting to do. Apart from anything else, is it not somewhat ridiculous that an IP user can raise a petition on this page as presumably he has a registered account himself that he will not use while he is carrying on this campaign? I accept that as an IP user myself I should not be here either but I was legitimately editing a discussion to support a friend who is being subject to injustice and I then find that my edits are being challenged here by a serial offender, so what can I do but defend myself too? The whole thing is somewhat farcical and it will be interesting and perhaps amusing to see how it ends. Do continue. --81.129.117.41 (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: CODE LETTER (Unknown code )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by 88.111.59.103 (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

no Declined. It is typically bad form for a checkuser to reveal whether an account is connected to an IP or not. --Deskana (talk) 11:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You say 'typically' but I think this must be one of the exceptions, given the overwhelming evidence and how the IP has edited, it is very important to know whether this IP is that of BlackJack. --88.111.59.103 (talk) 11:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid it's me that decides when to make an exception, and this isn't one of those times. --Deskana (talk) 11:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why? This is a dynamic IP address so I don't see any privacy issues. --88.111.59.103 (talk) 11:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it doesn't work like that. --Deskana (talk) 11:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be cause for concern here, so I've moved this to the non-checkuser section. --Deskana (talk) 12:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All this bickering you two are doing is almost certainly not going to be read by the person who handles this, so I'm not sure why you're bothering. --Deskana (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: I am also not inclined for any admin action to be taken on these IPs, should these be BlackJack's as they're from BT, which means lots of collateral damage. –MuZemike 17:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

22 January 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

See below. Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

08 April 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

Protea caffra started editting WP:CRIC articles less than a month ago, and soon started quoting wikipedia policy in a way similar to BlackJack, who has a history of socking whilst banned (and even when not). They made a large scale deletion of content (an example) across 100s of articles misrepresenting a previous RfC at WT:CRIC, which was in line with BlackJacks contribution to the RfC. When challenged about socking the user posted a random stream of nonsense and claims to have closed the account.

In case it is relevant, another blocked editor (and foe of BlackJack) has in the past accused me of being him (BlackJack) which is detailed on my talk page. Spike 'em (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I'm certain that BlackJack has posted using a number of IP addresses as well - the first I can find is on 28 January. Almost all geolocate to the same area. Some show absolutely classic trends - referencing in certain ways, using certain sources etc... for example. The IP addresses are shifting and use BT addresses so I appreciate that blocking them is unlikely. The geolocation will also reveal the user's real-world location so I'm cautious about opening any kind of SPI on them. If there's any benefit to listing them I can do so.

There are also a number of really very stale accounts - the most recent from 2013/14. BlackJack was not blocked from editing at that time and had chosen to leave the site for a while. I can share details of these accounts if it is relevant. I'm not entirely certain if it's the done thing to bring up such old accounts, but let me know if I need to do so.

It seems only fair to point out that myself and BlackJack have had issues in the past. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

27 April 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

IP editor has already been blocked, so adding this for the record. user went on a spree of abusive edits against myself and User:Blue Square Thing. We were both involved in reporting his previous SOCKing. Spike 'em (talk) 08:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

28 May 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

Makes seemingly good-faith edits to WP:CRIC articles, then quickly descends into policy arguments with existing users and finally claims that the project / whole of wikipedia is broken. Spike 'em (talk) 08:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

And probably best that the IP is rangeblocked, if possible. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the page history of this very SPI case, back in 2010 Blackjack posted this, confirming he's in Yorkshire. Which is where the two suspected socks are currently located. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

14 July 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


Same MO as before - a "new" editor pops up, editing various cricket articles, but in a style that a newbie wouldn't know (IE seeming pretty offay with wha to do from the start) example, example. Then knows how cite and add trivia, and then looking for an arguement when said trivia is removed. Ping @Spike 'em: and @Blue Square Thing: for info/heads-up. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Have to say, I'm not convinced. No mention of the project being broken yet, and I don't think the articles edited are those I'd expect from Jack. I'd give it a while and see how things pan out. Spike 'em (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

I think Azhar0705's edits are somewhat suspicious as a supposed newbie, but I don't see sufficient behavioral evidence to connect them to BlackJack. The first edits by Azhar0705 were to declare a COI and creat Draft:Liebherr Aerospace. Why would a sock of BJ do that? Closing with no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21 October 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


New editor who pops up initially to comment on this obscure cricketer at AfD. The initial article was created by Blackjack. Following the AfD and merge solution, then starts this AfD to which the cricketer's biography was merged to. Their edits and edit summaries to mainly cricket articles are in the same vein as Blackjacks, and follow the same MO. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I had exactly the same suspicions as Lugnuts: it seems to be the usual disruptive behaviour from BlackJack. WP:POINTY edits, taking things to AfD / RfC after a very short periods of seemingly normal editing. Spike 'em (talk) 09:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had some suspicions too. Some of the MO fits, as Lugnuts and Spike'em say. But the original BlackJack loathed me with a passion, whereas Scribbles has been polite and reasonable, so I don't know. Reyk YO! 10:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's always comments like this (which he has since withdrawn). Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

05 August 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Despite the attempts to portray themselves as someone different, the editting style / areas of interest seem to be those of a long since blocked editor, who has a history of disruptive editting in the cricket project. They started editting soon after the block of No Great Shaker who has been blocked for socking, but I and others in WP:CRIC think they are the same person. Spike 'em (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: see the comments at the bottom of my talk page, and the deleted ones this page from the ip editor where he admits to a number of his previous socks and his overall behaviour. He claims to be going away for a while, but will return to editing (no doubt under a different name). My suspicion was raised when this particular incarnation made some pointy AfDs on cricketers such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jackie Clark which BlackJack / other socks have a history of doing (though I may need some time to find something to corroborate this). Not sure how much you an take the word of the IP editor, and he never clearly admits to the BlackJack link. Spike 'em (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also : apologies if this page is a bit messy, I should have tried combining all the logs into one. I wasn't sure if it was necessary to link No Great Shaker back to BlackJack, as was already aware that this user is already blocked. Spike 'em (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, more linking the ip editor than this login, the last 2 cotributions of this sock are very similar in style to the comments on the community being broken on my talk page. Spike 'em (talk) 14:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GS fair enough. Not sure I can be bothered to attempt to find incontrovertible evidence either, so happy to leave as it is. Spike 'em (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

05 August 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

The manner of this user's flame out and disruptive use of sock puppets make me think this is actually long blocked editor BlackJack Spike 'em (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is somewhat cryptic and involves other now blocked editors, but this this discussion covers some other users' suspicions (and I believe there was some ip editting of both WT:CRIC and other related articles by BlackJack). Spike 'em (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

05 August 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

He seems to have a poor view of my editting abilities and did this just after I logged the other SPIs, which chimes with this edit mentioned above. Spike 'em (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

and admits to socking here [28] Spike 'em (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Editting"! LOL, I rest my CIR case (see below). God Almighty, he really is appalling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.208.192 (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily the wiki software allows typos / speeling mistakes to be amended quickly; unfortunately it does not allow one to correct personality flaws quite so easily. Spike 'em (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

03 January 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Similar editting on articles on early cricket history, such as English cricket matches to 1725. Editor interaction history shows large overlap between the original sock master and each the 2 newer ones, and some articles featuring all 3. No Great Shaker is blocked as a sockmaster in their own right, but Boca Jovenes started editting again after a 6 year gap just after the last of the NGS socks (Sistorian) was blocked, so I'm hoping that there may be enough technical data to link them together, so requesting checkuser for this. They have been editting in the current guise with little cause for concern, but there have been some personal attacks from ip editors who I believe are the same person, on User talk:Blue Square Thing, including reverting the removal of message from BlackJack on one of the archives. Spike 'em (talk) 11:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If Boca Jovenes / No Great Shaker / Sistorian are the same person then the SPI for NGS needs to be moved as Boca predates NGS, question is it here or to Boca Jovenes. I had raised the NGS / Sistorian links here before, so in an attempt to link the former to BlackJack:

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

09 May 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

Account was created a couple of months after BlackJack made an aborted block appeal.

They have a similar timecard to No Great Shaker and BlackJack. They also have a similar scale of editing, making in some months over 10,000 edits - Batagur baska having accomplished this after having been here for only two months.

They have the same interest in Cricket, and English Cricket, that both No Great Shaker and BlackJack had, and have the same opposition to WP:LUGSTUBS and WP:NSPORTS that No Great Shaker had - previously, No Great Shaker tried to have NSPORTS overturned on the grounds that I participated. See also their retirement message where they said that Improvement of the cricket project is obviously a criminal offence in the twisted minds of the extremist arseholes who use this s(h)ite to indulge in their penchants for interference and deletion. I have much better things to do than read the arrogant bullshit of such twats. Note that they used similar language to what BlackJack used in the edit summary when they removed their block appeal; Forget it. I'm too busy and have much better things to do, emphasis mine.

They have the same support for WP:ATD-R; Batagur baska has been going around redirecting large numbers of articles to prevent them being deleted or draftified at the Village Pump; No Great Shaker used to frequently argue to redirect articles at AfD, saying on one occasion Redirect per WP:PRESERVE, etc. unless other sources can be found, perhaps in Argentinian books written in Spanish. The source in the article verifies that Señor Antoli competed in the 1928 Olympics and so, failing notability, the article must be redirected. Why does the nominator need to have this spelled out to him nearly every time he nominates something for deletion that has been verified? Does he have a WP:IDHT issue? Indeed he does. He also needs to get into his head that PRESERVE is an integral part of WP:EDIT, the site's editing policy, whereas his precious SIGCOV is only a guideline.

They also showed significant precociousness, creating complicated tables (one, two) after having been here just one week; while precociousness alone isn't evidence of sockpuppetry, or even past experience on Wikipedia, given the broader context I think it adds evidence to the concern that they are a sockpuppet.

There isn't a full smoking gun here, but the behavior of this editor, combined with how many sockpuppets BlackJack has used, makes me believe that this is likely another sock. See also this ANI discussion BilledMammal (talk) 23:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC) BilledMammal (talk) 23:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

More