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

26 July 2012

Suspected sockpuppets

• Clarificationgiven (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.

Account created just over a week after the Justicejayant account was blocked, and has a very similar editing style pushing a pro-Gaddafi POV on Libya related articles. Wikistalk shows an interesting crossover, in addition to various Libya related articles you'd expect to see, there's also Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson and Talk:List of best-selling music artists, with neither account editing a large number of music related articles that could make that coincidental. Both Justicejayant and Clarificationgiven upload similar images on Commons also, usually copyvio images of pro-Gaddafi rallies, and Clarificationgiven is now trying (I've just tagged it as a copyvio on Commons) to add back an image originally uploaded by Justicejayant. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 06:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find anything legible in this claim, because i am using only this account for almost 2 months now, haven't been on any other account for editing wikipedia since the day 1 of this account, which can be checked. Neither i have broke any rules on this account, the additions which i have made on any page(whether you like or not) are made after a valid discussion and after following the rules of wikipedia. I know how it works, thus i am keeping in mind to break no rules of wikipedia. Clarificationgiven (talk) 07:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't whether you "haven't been on any other account for editing wikipedia since the day 1 of this account" [my emphasis], but whether you are a sock of an indef blocked editor. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 07:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

• Comment For the record, I do not know any of the parties involved nor have I ever conversed with them. As for Clarificationgiven, I have never conversed with him/her directly. All I know of this editor is that, they have contributed to an RFC I opened in the Libyan Civil War (see Libyan civil war : Mercenaries). In deed, their comments came after I left that project having handed it over to other editors to voice their opinions. This article is a very sensitive subject and many people have a view on it. Although I have not been commenting since opening the RFC and voicing my opinion, I have been watching the discussion there. From what I have seen in that discussion, Clarificationgiven always justify their position with sources whilst others voiced their opinions unsubstantiated. If Clarificationgiven is accused of POV pushing and edit warring, then some of the others are as much guilty as s/he is (see the discussion). As regards to the sock accusation, I see no tangible evidence to back up the accusation other than an accusation based on "coincidence". That in itself is not evidence. The toolserver-user compare report is not perfect. Two different editors with may show a similar report because they probably share similar interests even if they have never interacted before. Looking at the Common's files, that proves nothing either. As far as I can see, all of Justicejayant's uploads seems to be about Libya (e.g. File:Gaddafi-Rally.jpg), whilst Clarificationgiven's uploads are more varied including India related files. Perhaps the only similar file is "File:Pro-Tripoli-Rally.jpg", with the caveat that I have not seen that file because it was deleted. Even if it is the same or similar to Justicejayant's file, that still does not mean anything because many people can gain access to that file. Unless there is something that I do not know, good faith must be assumed and the accusation revoked. For the record, I found out about this case by clicking on their talk page, via the aforementioned article which is on my watchlist.Tamsier (talk) 12:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I would like to add that i have never broken any rule of wikipedia, the edits which i have made are not vandalism, nor they push POV, i haven't edit war either. Like every of my edit has been accepted in wikipedia as they are reliably sourced and verified, if there was any conflict i have bring it to talk. I know there are some editors over here who would never give up there made up opinion and tries to create conflicts but i have tried handling them as per the rule. I also agree that this whole report has to do nothing with any violation of wikipedia's rule, but it has to do only with the reporter's personal hatred, this is not first time that this editor is pointing me, it had happened before too,[1], [2], [3] and probably more times, difference between dates is visible too, so bigger point is why he is only bragging about me in so many pages? Clarificationgiven (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - A few weeks ago I have noticed other users such as Kudzu1 point at that they suspected Clarificationgiven is Justiceyant, and after checking the contribution history I found several key things.

Clarificationgiven was created a mere week after justicejayant was banned, and already was an active pro-gaddafi Libyan related article editor, capable of having long discussions on the talk page as justicejayant did. It is with noting that only Justicejayant had a pro-gaddafi skew at the time, and then a week later after he was \banned clarification is the only one with a heavy pro-gaddafi editing.

Both seem to have a nack for editing the Elvis Presley article

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Justicejayant&dir=prev&target=Justicejayant

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Clarificationgiven&offset=&limit=500&target=Clarificationgiven < Scroll down to the June 29 2012 section

Furthermore Tamsier - It would not surprise me if Clarificationgiven spent alot of time on India articles, considering the Ips 122.169.12.62 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/122.169.12.62 ) and 122.169.36.253 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/122.169.36.253 ), both of which Justicejayant was found of using, are from India, when you geolocate them. Sopher99 (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you have added no new point, except expanding the claims of this reporter just a little bit more, remembering you and me had past edit conflicts, in fact recently where the community disagreed with you[4], you would obviously go against here, well, according the this reporter's point of view, your account has more similarities with mine,[5] then if you are talking about IP address, then i would like to add that it's very random because the edits(Microsoft SharePoint Server, JavaServer Pages, etc) which are performed under that IP, aren't performed by me either. Clarificationgiven (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

• Obvious duck is obvious, including obvious logged out editing. For the record, this is  Likely bordering on  Confirmed. No rangeblock possible at this time.  No comment on the IPs. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Administrator note Blocked and tagged sock. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]