Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jacobkennedy/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jacobkennedy

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

14 December 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Blocked for socking earlier[1] by NeilN. Still using related IP for edit warring on LGBT rights in India.[2] D4iNa4 (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

18 December 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Russianvodka is temporarily blocked for edit warring and ipsocking, and is almost exclusively focused on LGBTQ related articles. Hithisisme is a new user who immediately started to repeat Rv's signature edits. Cf Russianvodka with Hithisisme and a previously blocked ipsock. bonadea contributions talk 06:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Yes that's him, I had prepared a report myself but I saw it has been already submitted. D4iNa4 (talk) 14:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Popular account is sometimes treated sockmaster because it is easier to recognize. I know a few such SPI cases. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

 Confirmed. I've blocked both accounts without tags. Hithisisme was created months earlier than Russianvodka and is therefore the master. However, they didn't edit until now. I prefer moving the case, but I'll let a clerk make the final decision.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it's probably best to keep it as is. Tagged and closing. GABgab 20:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

04 January 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Quack. Restores edits made by previous socks. bonadea contributions talk 09:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Changed status of the report. D4iNa4 (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Sock now blocked. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12 January 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Obvious sock is obvious. Only interested in adding undue detail to LGBTQI related articles, including repeats of edits by previous accounts. bonadea contributions talk 08:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Pink clock Awaiting administrative action - Please block sock. I think it's too obvious for CU. Sro23 (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sro23 -  Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12 February 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

New account immediately zeroing in on Russianvodka's specialities: LGBT in [country] articles, and removing homophobia related categories from articles about homophobia related subjects. bonadea contributions talk 11:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I submitted this without diffs - as obvious as the sock is, I know diffs are always useful. Master vs this account is clear. These edits deal with one of Rv's hobby horses, which is adding mentions of torture to LGBTQI related articles. --bonadea contributions talk 12:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. I did a few edits of that category but that doesn't mean I'm a sockpuppet. It seems to me like you might be fishing for accounts? Having a few similar edits is not the same as having a fake account. You aren't wp:assuminggoodfaith. Shouldn't you wp:dontbitethenewcomers and let them edit instead of jumping on them? I was wp:bebold by doing edits that I thought were bettering the wiki community. Also on a talk page you didn't let me even get wp:consesus by making my point. You do know that wp:wikipediaisnotcensored so if you have a problem with my point itself feel free to respond instead of wp:blanking. I maintain my innocence from your bias filled charges of sockpuppeting and hope the reviewing admin will too.Ilovejellybagels (talk) 11:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC) The first edit you are referring to in refs is from a user named Russianvodka not my account Ilovejellydoughnuts. I'm not sure if that was a mistake or not. The second one was from me adding torture because of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia#genderidentity where it says that activists claim 2 transgender Pakistanis were tortured to death. It seems like a reasonable edit since it is sourced with this article [1].[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/transgender-pakistani-saudi-arabia-tortured-death-amna-meeno-11-custody-lgbt-rights-human-a7607446.html

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk - Please, compare to the master. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

08 April 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Obvious ipsock, disruptive edits to LGBTQI related articles. Also reported to AIV for persistent vandalism. bonadea contributions talk 20:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

10 September 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


User:4chan kek has already been blocked as CU-confirmed puppet. The account User talk:Revert time was created shortly after the block and has since been busy in Moneyspender's favorite topic of LGBT laws in the third world, continuing their extraordinarily persistent campaign to remove sourced material in Death penalty for homosexuality. Cf. [3] with [4], [5], [6], etc. Eperoton (talk) 02:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. I have one or two similar edits since I saw the older versions in history and it seems like these new sources are updates to your old outdated source. I have also made other edits to other pages about African human rights that are my own. You being upset that you added a source that is no longer of accuracy is in no way proof of any wrongdoing on my end. This is a witch hunt and assumption of bad faith. Stop WP:HOUNDING and to trying to justify your disruptive reverts and WP:STICK. You don't have to have the WP:WORD. Try to WP:AGF and WP:DROP; realize Wikipedia is not about WP:WIN. Sometimes sources get outdated. It happens to even editor sooner or later, no need to be embarrassed :) Revert time (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC) Also, I believe the policy is that I should have been notified about your frivolous accusations and this investigation on my talk page. Please do so next time. Thank you. Revert time (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong about that for SPI, but you've obviously been to WP:ANI before. Care to elaborate? 2600:1003:B855:6E27:D4E2:CCF7:4729:F994 (talk) 23:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To explain my edits best I'll repost my reasoning from the Death Penalty for Homosexuality talk page where El_C and I discussed the edits and he seemed to agree about the accuracy of my edits. "My intentions are not to remove the sourced content but instead replace it with updated info. As I had mentioned, the Washington Post source that Bonadea keeps reverting back to is old and antiqued, as well as old data that is no longer accurate. It claims that "legal experts disagree on whether the federal law of the United Arab Emirates prescribes the death penalty for consensual gay sex or only for rape" but I again believe the sources I have provided prove that this statement is no longer a valid belief. These three articles show that people have been killed for just being gay.It seems straightforward how and what the law is applied to. It is obvious from these that rape is not what this law is used for; this statement has been successfully proven false. Note especially the New York Times article that says homosexuality is enforced on rare occasion.[1] [2] [3] Because of this I believe my version is correct, concise and shows the law in a straightforward, brutally honest way as being as I had listed before, a place where gays are executed for just being homosexual itself. So my version is the most updated version and it should be reverted and kept the way I wrote it." Revert time (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

05 October 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Behavioral evidence The user Lmharding appears to make disruptive edits to articles about LGBT rights in a manner very similar to Jacobkennedy and sockpuppets thereof. These edits typically portray LGBT punishments in countries as being harsher or more punitive than reality. Lmharding and the suspected sockmaster Jacobkennedy both have a history of adding information about vigilante executions in sections that are about the legality of LGBT activities.

Below are examples of edits made by Lmharding.

Below are examples of similar edits made by Jacobkennedy

Lmharding has a history of making edits that remove nuance about the current state of LGBT rights in countries. For example, this edit to the article on LGBT rights in Sierra Leone removed information that a certain penalty (while in existence) is not enforced. This is similar to this edit by Russianvodka (a confirmed sockpuppet of Jacobharding), which removed information that "there were no prosecutions for homosexual activity" despite anti-LGBT laws existing.

Another similarity is how these accounts have responded to administrative action. When the confirmed sockpuppet Revert time was under investigation, that account accused others of WP:HOUNDING [7], and that is now what Lmharding is claiming is happening on WP:ANI [8].

Reason for requesting CU I am requesting a CU because of the nature of the edits (the focus on vigilante killings of LGBT people and flattening of nuance on the state of LGBT experiences) are about a sensitive topic (i.e. LGBT rights) and the similarities in the edits suggest that they are by the same user as outlined above. As the SPI archive for Jacobkennedy shows, sockpuppetry is something that Jacobkennedy has historically engaged in time and time again, which suggests a high likelihood that the user may continue to be a repeat offender. I believe a CU is required to investigate this because Lmharding has "apologized" on the ANI page and stated, "this apology is enough for us to move on and not continue bringing up the past as I putting a strong effort to acting better." [9] However, because of the similarities with previous confirmed sockpuppet accounts, I believe this is a pattern where this user has a history of making disruptive edits about LGBT rights, being blocked for it (or for being a sockpuppet), and then skirting that ban with another sockpuppet. Given the behavioral evidence, I believe a CU is warranted in order to conclusively address this behavior. Marxling (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • CU  Clerk declined - the previous accounts in this case have not edited in over 3 years. As CU data expires over time, it is unlikely that any useful data would be available. Spicy (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checked anyway due to Jacobkennedy's habit of operating multiple accounts at once.  Confirmed to the master, much to my surprise.  Blocked and tagged. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 04:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22 October 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

IP appears to be a sock as it continuously attempts to maintain the same WP:SYNTH content that the previous sock Lmharding added including re-inserting the sock's obsession with adding "vigilante executions" as a legal penalty. The IP has also been used to restore Lmharding's edits when they were reverted by other editors as seen in the LGBT rights in Alabama. Here the IP appears to have made a mistake and corrected a mistake made by Lmharding in Lmharding's own talk page without realizing they are logged out. UtoD 08:43, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the edit message even if that user LMHarding was listed as a sock the source in this particular situation matched the edit and if it is correct WP:SOCK says that in that situation you do not revert it. Being an edit done by that is not always an auto revert. I stated this then you reverted twice with no revert message explanation. I reject your label. As for that one other edit I was watching the conversation as I was interested in watching how AukusRuckus edits to teach myself the edit tools here on Wikipedia and I happened to see an edit I tried to edit as a test edit. Please don't WP:BITETHENEWCOMER. Cheers. 09:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC)~

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • IP blocked...and you're really not helping your case by pretending to be someone else while challenging people reverting your block-evading edits. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

27 October 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Reinstates removed content that was previously added by other sock lmharding on the first day of editing across the multiple pages. Continues the obsessive addition of vigilante attacks and executions as legal penalties using WP:SYNTH Eg [10] [11] [12] [13] UtoD 07:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
As a defense for myself, I shall explain each edit and my intentions for you. The first 4 edits were my addition of a source of life imprisonment of a military person who did a heinous act against another military person. The additional edits for that were fixing the link and making sure any other errors I made typing it got resolved.

Then I asked a question about notability on the talk page for notability features for a side project I was looking at to see if notability can be resolved.

Then I was browsing Texas articles and I came across an edit I thought I was helping by adding that on law for LGBTQIA+ care for minors was not allowed and I thought it should have been written as no with the law not being passed. I did not see the history of the edit or the talk page and I was unaware of it being addressed previously.

Then I was curious about other illegality pages and after reading a few others I saw that Libya did not list in the summary about ISIS killings of LGBTQIA+ people. Again, I did not see the talk page but this time I did check the history and I guess I should have thought the reasoning listed through better.

Then I added an educator role in a football player's page as he was a teacher afterwards.

Then being of Irish descent I read the Irish President's article briefly, Googled him and saw an odd statement he made about Catholics and Catholic education so I asked how to address it in his talk page.

Then again I made the mistake of not contemplating the reasoning as I reverted the articles that I read in one other GBT after curiousity struck me again and I read another article.

Since I saw one user in particular reverting a low I checked what other edits he did to see why he was reverting them and trying to understand. He reverted some political edits done about a commentator that matched his appearance in the video and nothing said there seemed to be a lie this Ben Gleib was a commentator at points for The Young Turks.

I apologize for my edits, I have great intentions to make meaningful edits and I am not sure what else to say but I plan to do better and I am currently looking at policies about reverting to learn from my mistakes in the future.

Thank you. 09:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubbs surpreme (talk • contribs)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • CU data isn't conclusive, but the behavioural evidence is. Blocking, tagging as proven. Girth Summit (blether) 10:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

29 December 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

All these IPs, except the last, have restored the same edits at LGBT rights in the United Arab Emirates, since 27 December. Page protection had expired not long before. Edits are aimed at inserting into the infobox details of mistreatment and abuse of LGBT persons as "penalties", even though none of the abuses are legal penalties for crime in any sense. E.g., beatings, forced anal examinations, hormones, torture.

Additions are similar to those of previous sock; Lmharding's continual insertion of "vigilante executions, beatings, forced anal examinations, torture", etc. on many LGBT pages, especially UAE one, had same focus. Edits also remove parts of quotes or expert commentary which suggests lack of enforcement for legal penalties, especially the death penalty. This was also a focus for Lmharding. For example, where LMH had excised part of quote so that Amnesty said "The United Arab Emirates (UAE)... is a federal system" instead of the fuller quote: "The United Arab Emirates (UAE) does not carry the death penalty for same-sex consensual sexual relations. The UAE is a federal system", the truncated version promptly restored by another sock, Littlepersonlavalamp. This new set of IPs removes the quote all together [21].

The last IP, 74.208.124.146, restored IP 155.137.183.249's talk page post that had been reverted as WP:DENY by another editor. I see that @Callanecc has now blocked that IP user; don't know if that block is related.

IP 206.221.189.75 deleted a talk page post that Lmharding had also removed back in August, for some reason. IP 155.137.183.249 took exception to my restoring comments and redacted them (several times).

There is more if needed; this is too long already, though. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Blocked 155.137.183.249 for 3 days. Callanecc has taken care of everything else, including semi-protecting the article and blocking the other IPs, mostly as webhosts, except for 103.217.209.40, who appears to have stopped editing. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

04 January 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Very similar edit to an IP that was previously blocked (IP & Buger677). Requesting CU for a sleeper check given this account gamed autoconfirmation to edit the protected page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • information Administrator note - sock blocked and tagged as suspected in the meantime. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  In progress. --Blablubbs (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed to a number of confirmed socks including Lmharding; no unblocked sleepers immediately visible. I'll retag and close. --Blablubbs (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06 May 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Proforma report, as recommended by Drmies, for CU-confirmed sock, already checked and blocked by Drmies.

For completeness, some basic evidence— Virtually identical editing−in content and style–as previous socks: [22] [23] Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 09:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

23 June 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Proforma only, (very late!) for CU-confirmed sock, already blocked by Drmies, due to same-same on LGBT Rights in UAE.

From 31 May – apologies for forgetfulness. AukusRuckus (talk) 09:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

23 June 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Another proforma filing: already CU-blocked by Drmies for the usual.

Cf: the same edit; earlier; etc., ad nauseum, ad infinitum. AukusRuckus (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

31 July 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Proforma filing: already CU-blocked by Drmies. Basic examples—

Thanks, AukusRuckus (talk) 12:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

17 August 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Proforma filing: already CU-blocked (itssmeagain) by Drmies ...

except ...

  • Not sure about the IP: Does it need any action? Should it be separately filed? Forget about it as it's not editing?
    • Basically, the IP made the same edit as an earlier IP sock, blocked only a day or two before. The CU-blocked account, itssmeagain, then registered and immediately continued those same edits, and posted in support of the IP sock on the talk page.
    • The edits of non-blocked IP 154.47.19.132 were what alerted me to the sockiness of (the now-blocked) itssmeagain, so should something happen there, or ...? Yours, a confused AukusRuckus (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • The named account is block, and the IP hasn't edited in a few days. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14 September 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Pro forma to enter accumulated evidence into the record.

Copied from User talk:Drmies, with some meta-discussion removed.

Would it be too tiresome to ask you to look at this new user's edits? Special:Contributions/Dukeofsamuels. I believe they are most likely yet another sock of Jacobkennedy (although maybe I'm jumping the gun). They have been autoconfirmed now, so there could be some bolder action soon; so far, they've been slightly more circumspect on the LGBT articles [24]; [25]. Still, the edits done to become autoconfirmed follow the recent pattern: category additions/deletions, especially cause of death and religious affiliation; protected page edit requests; pop culture/celebrity and high-profile crime articles. What do you think? If you think it's too early to warrant checking, I'll understand. AukusRuckus (talk) 07:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, this edit should get rid of them per NOTHERE. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 07:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's typical JK ham-fisted expression (not to mention fixation with undue detail): I mean, "gross", indeed! Are they 12? Also, seems to genuinely think the article they linked to could be a RS. AukusRuckus (talk) 13:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This talk page post from an IP has all the hallmarks of Jkennedy:
  • Such "clear" phrasing as: "it not only removes off topic discussion about adultery which is off-topic" and edited into article "same-sex acts are a possibility of a death penalty";
  • arguments that absence of evidence means that the opposite possibilities must be included: "with the possibility of unreported executions as that can't be ruled out in the report";
  • and being adamant that (already clearly attributed and expert) commentary may not be used unless they can add their own commentary: "Finally in the note for the Amnesty report, I added that this interpretation that seems to be added to the summary twice is just that: an interpretation, and the application of anti-gay laws in the UAE are not confirmed to be only used for rape." (Which is not a contention in either the Amnesty report or the article.)
  • Changed a sentence in a direct quote, which was included a reference, not in the article text itself, from: "Courts rarely issue stoning sentences but it has happened occasionally." to "Courts issue stoning sentences occasionally."
  • Misleading edit summaries: "partial revert, you undid edits of North Korea", when, in fact, they reinserted much of the other reverted material, as before.
These are all so reminiscent of the dead-end—not to mention deadening—exchanges I unfortunately had with Lmharding (especially at Talk:LGBT rights in the United Arab Emirates), that I'd like to prevent yet another editor being taken to the edge of insanity as I was—@SomethingForDeletion: left this message for me on my talk; it'd be great to get this latest sock out of here before SFD is pushed to my stage of derangement! I can already detect subtle signs of the slow leakage of brain matter suffered by SomethingForDeletion, inflicted by the logic of JK's edits and replies. (How do you remain so cerebrally intact, Drmies, with this stuff multiplied many times over? What's your secret?)
Probably this level of detail is unnecessary, but I just wanted to "show my working". Thanks for listening. AukusRuckus (talk) 06:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That IP has now registered (with user name 'itssmeagain': contempt or obliviousness?) and re-reverted SomethingForDeletion, then posted at their earlier talk page discussion, here. AukusRuckus (talk) 13:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see it. ? Drmies (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @LilianaUwU: My suspicion was also aroused when that 161 IP made, in part, a similar edit to the 110.136.218.138 sock that you had just reverted. However, this IP 161 stays close to the horror genre and crime articles. Back in May (if it's the same user then as now), they said in an ES: "No indication of gender-based/biased anywhere in the article, category isn't just for any incident in which victim(s) happened to be male." This is articulate and cogent to a degree never seen in the expression of JK! So I discounted them as one of their socks. AukusRuckus (talk) 06:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you wouldn't mind, Drmies, please look at this newly confirmed editor, Special:Contributions/Cheemsforever. They have returned LGBT rights in the UAE to practically the same version as earlier socks of (again) Jacobkennedy. Also, a range of IPs:
have been tag-teaming with Cheemsforever on any LGBT articles that are not already semi-protected, notably at Criminalization of homosexuality:

Was trying to leave it all alone this time but I am apparently incapable of ignoring their sheer contempt for everyone and everything WP: I requested page protection, which attracted this post from 104.152.222.44. The outcome for that request was to semi-protect for 2 weeks, and the editor who did that, @Daniel Case:, suggested a range block for the IPs might be needed. (Only pinging the other editors mentioned here, in case they wanted to mention anything: Hope that's not out of order).

Let me know if there is a better way of going about this, and I'll do my best to comply. Thanks, AukusRuckus (talk) 06:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I undid 104.152.222.36's latest edit to LGBT rights in Saudi Arabia equaldex.com is wp:UGC Adakiko (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, Adakiko. AukusRuckus (talk) 01:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

03 March 2024[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Account created week ago immediately attempting to add similar edits as previous socks. I don't have previous experience with the sockmaster, but behavior seems a bit WP:DUCK. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jacobkennedy/Archive&oldid=1211795501"