The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Jayjg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

132.66.238.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by --John Nagle 22

54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Tag-term revert involving Jayjg (talk · contribs) and 132.66.238.69 (talk · contribs). The anon account, with no Wikipedia history before today, has three edits in Wikipedia, all related to similar issues. Jayjg (talk · contribs) has reverted StandWithUs three times today, and 132.66.238.69 (talk · contribs) has reverted it once.

• 21:34, 6 June 2007 Jayjg (Talk | contribs) (3,450 bytes) (remove original research)
• 20:33, 6 June 2007 Jayjg (Talk | contribs) (3,424 bytes) (remove original research - database searches are original research)
• 14:55, 6 June 2007 132.66.238.69 (Talk) (2,898 bytes) (removed original research)
• 20:01, 5 June 2007 Jayjg (Talk | contribs) (2,958 bytes) (remove original research, ask for citations)

Note similarity of comments on reverts. This is a possible sockpuppet or meatpuppet situation, but it's too early to be sure.

A traceroute to 132.66.238.69 returns "sackler29-6.tau.ac.il".

Comments

This is unexpected. I've had disagreements with Jayjg (talk · contribs) before, but he's generally stayed within Wikipedia rules since his arbitration decision last year.

I suspect I've been annoying Jayjg by replying to his insertion of ((fact)) tags by inserting very detailed references to government and IRS filings which validate information he would prefer be removed from the article. --John Nagle 22:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

• I suspect you're trying to get the upper hand in a content dispute through vexatious filings on a noticeboard. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---