Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeneral28/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jeneral28

Report date May 29 2009, 14:17 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Frehley

The account "Tomcat96" was created today, and has only been used to edit the articles that "Jeneral28" has been editing. The account is also "agreeing" with "Jeneral28" on talk page discussions that they started. Another block avoiding sock by Jeneral28 (Neptune123456) was blocked yesterday. Frehley 14:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

What the/ a new user cannot edit page and get accused of a term I have never heard of? Wher is the Unniversal Declaration of Human Rights? America's constitution?Tomcat96 (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note blocked by FisherQueen (talk · contribs). Also see this related ANI report, for the record. Amalthea 15:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Icestorm815 • Talk 15:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

08 June 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Jeneral28 was indefinitely blocked on May 29, 2009. The user created at least two sockpuppet accounts to evade this block, including Tomcat96 and Neptune123456; both accounts were blocked as sockpuppets within a day or two of the indef block. The account that is the subject of this report, Foxhound66, was created on May 30, 2009, the day after the indef block was imposed on Jeneral28, on May 30, 2009.

Two IP-addresses, 147.188.244.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 147.188.244.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), were confirmed to be sockpuppets of Jeneral28; both IP addresses are registered to the University of Birmingham. Meanwhile, two separate IP addresses have been blocked within the last week as sockpuppets of Foxhound66, 147.188.254.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 147.188.254.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). These IP addresses are very close to the IP addresses used by Jeneral28, and both are also registered to the University of Birmingham.

Both Jeneral28 and Foxhound66 share very specific editing interests. See this, which to me highly suggests that the two accounts are related. Of note, both accounts have a tendency to edit articles relating to international political economy, Jennette McCurdy, Toto, and two specific schools located in Singapore: Raffles Girls' School (Secondary) and Singapore Chinese Girls' School. Some specific examples of shared editing interests are as follows:

Both Jeneral28 and Foxhound66 also act similarly. They both consistently blank their talk pages after other users edit it. They both attack Wikipedia and its users (for example, see: [3], [4], [5], [6]). Finally, as noted above by other users, both have a tendency to go back to their previous edits while logged in on a sock account and continue previous conversations started from their "master" account. For example, see this edit by FoxHound66, this edit by Neptune123456, this edit by Tomcat96, this edit by a confirmed IP-sock of Foxhound66, etc.

In summary, the evidence suggests that both users are 1) affiliated with the University of Birmingham, 2) are interested in Jennette McCurdy, the band Toto, international political economy, and two specific Singapore girls schools, 3) and have similar etiquette issues. Foxhound66's account was created the day after Jeneral28 was indef blocked. Circumstantial evidence seems to support that there is a connection between these two accounts. I am unsure if a checkuser would help here, given that Jeneral28 has been blocked for two years now, though an admin suggested that checkuser data related to sockpuppet users is sometimes preserved.

The evidence linking the third IP address, 78.109.182.43, to Jeneral28 are less concrete, but the IP address does share similar editing interests as Foxhound66 (international development, international political economy, British military articles, and Singapore military). Moreover, this third IP address has been going onto the talk pages of users that Foxhound66 has edited prior to being blocked (or users he has worked with using his IP address as his main account is currently blocked), and continuing conversations.

  • Specifically, for example, see these two edits: [7], [8]. Here the user is continuing a conversation with a user regarding the Special Operations Task Force article, which was started by an IP already confirmed to be a sock of Foxhound66.
  • See also these edits, where the IP user is continuing interactions with a user regarding warships of the Royal Navy: [9], [10], and [11].
  • Finally, see the article United Nations Development Group. IP user 147.188.254.154, already confirmed as a sock of Foxhound66, heavily edited the article while Foxhound66 was blocked[12]; after that IP was blocked, IP user 78.109.182.43 went back and did one more copy edit.[13]

A checkuser may be useful here to see if there is a connection between this third IP address and Foxhound66. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 11:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Response to TNXMan (below)

If Jeneral28's data is too old, would it be possible/viable to open a new SPI with Foxhound66 listed as the main sockmaster on that last 78.109 apparent sock, given the fairly strong editing similarity? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine, but checkuser would still be unable to offer an conclusions. Analysis of the behavioral evidence would still be necessary by the patrolling admin/clerk. TNXMan 13:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Aoi (above)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

The data on any named accounts is  Stale and checkuser does not generally disclose connections between IPs and named accounts. TNXMan 12:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

03 July 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Cibwins2885 was created the exact same day the previous blocked sock, Foxhound66, was blocked, and continued to edit the same articles. Cibwins2885 was indefinitely blocked by LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on 30 June. This is a procedural report, and also a request to find any new accounts this sockmaster might have created since, if possible. I've left the "checkuser" field as "no" for now, but the patrolling clerk might think it a reasonable request to sweep for sleepers. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

  • The results are very interesting. Mphil1805 was created on 30 June, unsurprisingly the same day Cibwins2885 was blocked. Edits to similar articles as Foxhound66 and his other socks, too. What strikes me the most is the set of edits by Amandalu862, which are a weird mix of Singaporean people, schools, UK military and... er, complaints about offensive vulva images? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

 Clerk endorsed Self-endorsed. Every time an account was blocked, a new one was opened almost immediately. I think it is prudent to take a look to see if a new account has been created, and perhaps if there is an underlying small IP range or other action that can stop this behavior. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 03:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeneral28 is stale. The following accounts are related on a technical level:

Please only block an account if there is also a behavioural match. The exception to this is Cibrules95 which I have blocked myself as the technical evidence is pretty clear that the account was created with the intent of evading an impending block. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They were all behavioural matches in my opinion and given they are related on a technical level as well I believe they are all the same user and all are now blocked. Woody (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

12 April 2016

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


After a little birdie kindly pointed out the similarities between Phd8511 and long-ago blocked Jeneral28, it was obvious as daylight: the user name, the snippiness, the syntax/rhetoric of their edit summaries, and their interests. The overlap between the two accounts is convincing, and a similar overlap was found with a randomly-picked old sock, Mphil1805. I mean, an amazing overlap. Account already blocked, will run CU just in case. [nothing found, but I filed on the CU wiki] Drmies (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Tiny acorns..." - theWOLFchild 02:59, 12 April 2016 (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]

16 August 2016

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Account was created at 04:31 on 12 April 2016, after the previous sock, Phd8511, was blocked at 03:26 the same day. The editor's user name has a similar theme, with a nod to academia in the name. The contribution history reveals lots of overlaps, with edits to articles such as International Development Association (here and here) and United Nations Development Group, and a shared interest in the military, political economy academics (e.g. this and this) and American TV series (e.g. this and this). A quack case, I think. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A slightly strange response from Cantab1985, who also states that they are making constructive edits. While that may be true, this still appears to be block evasion, and the editor should presumably request that their original account is unblocked if they wish to resume constructive editing? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strange?! You started this when I've no idea what you are talking about. All my edits are constructive and have been thanked by several users who also corrected spelling and formatting which I then improved upon. My history shows I've edited articles on so many different topics. Strange in my your mind.Cantab1985 (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps not strange as such, but I wondered why you were asking me who I am. That doesn't seem relevant here. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is relevant is you not considering other factors. Still so arrogant.Cantab1985 (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please outline the other factors, and explain whether these mean that you are not a sock, or whether you are citing them as mitigation, Cantab1985? I would be very happy to be proven wrong here, but the evidence of the overlap in your editing and the timing of your account creation is difficult to ignore. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You tell me why you do this; I see no clean reason. I have created article that do not relate to any of what you talk about Mechanised Infantry Vehicle, Multi Role Vehicle-Protected, Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre and SPEAR 3 and have edited military, social, country, international affairs articles constructively, have received thanks from users like User:Dormskirk, User:Ahunt help and compliments from others like users like BilCat, Whizz40, User:samtar and User:Marchjuly. All I see from your own edits is your bragging about your academics, you aimlessly edited this and that. Finally you say "you are happy" are you really sincerely saying that?Cantab1985 (talk) 13:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am being sincere, Cantab1985. I don't really understand the last part of your comment, about my contributions. Yes, I have written some articles about academics, but they are not "my academics" - they are people I have never met. Can you clarify whether you are saying that you are Jeneral28 but have made useful contributions, or that those contributions prove that you are not Jeneral28? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't understand you either. My comment is that I am neither and have you even at my contributions? Your bragging is is stating you have three degrees. I don't brag about my background or my edits and am happy to not start conflicts even though stuff like Marco Pierre White's notable personal life was rejected.Cantab1985 (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have I even what at your contributions? Looked? Yes, I have. Please see this comparison. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you don't appreciate the value of any of my contributions. I'll revert some edits now. I have no understand why you want to block people.Cantab1985 (talk) 02:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not making a judgement about the value of your contributions. This is about the fact that you are avoiding a block by creating new accounts. If you want to appeal your block with the promise that you will abide by the rules, then you should do that rather than creating new accounts. Please see WP:OFFER. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS: It's not clear why you say you are going to revert some edits. If you mean your own, I would advise against that. Just let this investigation run its course. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that you mention Marco Pierre White, Cantab1985. I see that both Phd8511 and you have an interest in his chauffeur. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2016 (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]

 Clerk note: accounts were already blocked and tagged but the status was not switched. Now closed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

09 January 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Adding references to the edit summary (eg [20], [21], and [22]); this was found to be a particular practice of this sockpuppet. With only 31 edits, this user has 9 pages in common with the most recent socks (checked against Cantab1985 and Phd8511 using Editor Interaction Analyser). Most edits are to military related articles (as with previous socks), with the notable exception of an edit to While My Guitar Gently Weeps (which was also edited by Jeneral28 [23]). I welcomed/challenged the user on 8 December 2016 but they simply deleted it. They have recently been warned for uncivil behaviour. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 02:42, 9 January 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]

The accounts in the archive are  Stale. CU declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Behavioral evidence looks good. Account seems like it's been more-or-less abandoned, but I'll block anyway. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

13 July 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Adding references to the edit summary (most recently [24], [25], and [26]); this has been noted as a particular practice of this sockpuppet. The account was created just hours after I left a message about sockpuppetry on a different sock's talk page (ACSilver); this account creation is therefore directly linked with that challenge. This account has edited more than sixty of the same articles as the most recent two socks (as seen with Editor Interaction Analyser). Its other edits are related to the British military; Jeneral28 and sock's favourite topic. As with other socks, this user has been warned for incivility. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 00:05, 13 July 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]

01 September 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Very similar behavior patterns. As with previous socks, user is adding references to the edit summary (see [27], [28], [29] for three most recent examples, all within the last few days). The Ajaxrocks account was created on July 14, only one day after the most recent SPI was filed. Note the similarities between this user name, and the most recently tagged sock -- Ajaxrocks and JessPavarocks. In addition, like almost all of the previous socks, this user also blanks their talk page after receiving messages [see [30] and [31]. Finally, for a user that's only been active for a month a half, there is an amazing overlap in editing interests, see [32] for overlap with last tagged sock. Seems like a WP:DUCK to me, so I'm not requesting a CU, but if a clerk, CU, admin, or other user thinks one should be done, please feel free to overrule me (data from the last sock is not yet stale). 青い(Aoi) (talk) 20:14, 1 September 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]

This case is being reviewed by Sro23 as part of the clerk training process. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on their Talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

04 September 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

This user's most previous sock, Ajaxrocks, was blocked for block evasion a few days ago. I reverted some of the user's edits for sockpuppetry, but one single edit was reverted back to the state it was as Ajaxrocks left it. In addition, the user went to the talk page of a user that Ajaxrocks previously had a content dispute with and continued the argument, only a few hours after Ajaxrocks' unblock request was denied. Looking back at the IP's previous edits, it also has hallmarks of Jeneral28's pattern of edits: snippy edits bordering on written abuse and personal attacks [33][34][35] (see these edits for similar behavior on a previous sock: [36], [37]), and putting URLs directly in edit summaries [38][39]. Articles edited are the same topic area as Jeneral28 -- British military and political articles. Finally, this IP was previously blocked for block evasion, though I cannot tell from the block log or talk page what block this IP was evading[40]. Based on the aforementioned insult to the IP user a few hours ago (that Ajaxrocks had a content dispute with) alone, I strongly feel like this is a WP:DUCK. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 02:25, 4 September 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]

I agree that it looks like him. Seems like a static IP; blocked for 1 year since the previous block was 6 months. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

05 December 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Investigation requested by Thewolfchild on my talk page. The master requested a merge discussion and deletion of several related articles; the socks all commented in support, and have few other edits. See below. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:10, 5 December 2020 (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]

02 May 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Ok, so....

The piece of evidence that got me started on this; this account on Military Wikia, named Jeneral28– akin to the blocked puppeteer Jeneral28. I found this Wikia account whilst doing research for an article I was creating a few days back, I noticed that it had had a very similar editing style and pattern to BlueD954 and so I politely inquired on his talk page, which he then removed without answering, with the edit summary "How dare a lon term blocked user lecture me." (I'm not too sure what this means). So I Initially left it there, until Thewolfchild alerted me to Jeneral28 having been blocked on Wikipedia 10 years ago, at this point I started to look a bit more into it, and evidence of sockpuppetry became clearer.

1) BlueD954's edits on Wikipedia, and those of Jeneral28 on Wikia are very much similar– often even identical in nature. E.g.

HMS Repulse (1916): Removing the word "consort" from the intro. Wikipedia and Wikia; the two edits happened within 1 minute of eachother.
The articles below are exact copy-pastes from Wikia to Wikipedia, and almost the exact same edits are made at almost the exact same time. I've included an edit as an example.
Changing a persons job role: Wikipedia and Wikia. Again these both happened with the same minute– 14:33, 20 April 2021. Please also note the similarity in edit summaries: "update fast" and "Update faster than SP" for the edit.

2) BlueD954 edits many of the same articles that Jeneral28 and their sockpuppets did, for example:

British Government frontbench
BlueD954 – 389 edits to the page in total (the most out of any user)
Cantab1985 – 342 edits to the page in total (the second most out of any user)

3) Both Jeneral28 and his sockpuppets, and BlueD954 have a very distinct way of utilising talk pages. This, quite often consists of a link (in url format), with a sentence beneath, and then signed beneath that; sometimes the sentence is omitted and instead used as a section header.

BlueD954
Amandalu862
BSc600
User:Cibwins2885

I think you probably get the idea, BlueD945 use an identical MOS, to the sockpuppets, for writing on talk pages.

4) BlueD954 has also used sockpuppers and canvassing in the past, in order to 'gain support' for a particular discussion that affects him.

Socpuppers of BlueD954: Aielen85, Leahjstaples1234, and SayleD. Investigation is here.

Evidence of using sockpuppers: here, here, and more which I won't bother including.

Evidence of canvassing can also be found at User talk:Dormskirk/Archive 8#I know I'm not suppose to canvass.

5) More similarities to Jeneral28, and their sockpuppets as laid out here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeneral28/Archive

  • Regarding Jeneral28 and sockpuppets Foxhound66 and Ajaxrocks: "They both consistently blank their talk pages after other users edit it.", and "this user also blanks their talk page after receiving messages"
  • BlueD954:
  • Regarding Jeneral28, Foxhound66, and 116.12.147.235: "They both attack Wikipedia and its users", and "snippy edits bordering on written abuse and personal attacks" Also happens quite a bit in edit summaries
  • BlueD954:
  • 21 April 2021 – see edit summary
  • 27 April 2021 – see edit summary
  • Also circling back to the start and the Jeneral28 account on Wikia (which I believe links BlueD945to Jeneral 28) they also seem to mention me/attack me in edit summaries, even though I've never spoken to somebody named "Jeneral28":
  • Regarding Jeneral28, Cantab1985, JessPavarocks, ACSilver, and 116.12.147.235: "It is worth noting that both usernames have the unusual practice of putting references in the edit summary rather than the main space of an article when editing", "Adding references to the edit summary", "Adding references to the edit summary", "user is adding references to the edit summary", and "putting URLs directly in edit summaries"
  • BlueD954: Note Jeneral28 at Wikia also seems to do this.

6) BlueD954 and Jeneral28;s sockpuppets use many of the same box templates (can't for the life of me remember their name) on their User page.

See this version for what I am talking about.
They both use
  • Wikiproject International Development
  • Wikiproject International Relations
  • United Nations related templates
  • Economics related templates

To sum up BlueD954 has many, many of the same editing styles and habits as Jeneral28 and their numerous sockpuppet accounts. Also BlueD954 seems to be the same person as Jeneral28 on Military Wikia, who has the same name as Jeneral28 on Wikipedia, leading me to believe that they are linked. I know this was a lot of information, so thanks for reading I guess. SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 14:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

So as another sock of Jeneral28, what happens to it now? I only ask because I don't know all the SPI procedures. Thanks - wolf 21:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thewolfchild, no account with that username now exists as the account was renamed and as such that username is not attached to any account (so I can't block it). If you go to Special:Contributions/Sammartinlai it says "Sammartinlai" is not registered on this wiki. With regards to tagging, there is little need to add a tag to that userpage as now no account exists for that username and they haven't used that username for over 2 years. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 21:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I recalled the name after seeing it in an older edit, (but not striked out). Thanks for the replies. - wolf 21:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

07 May 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Edits + email sent to me with evidence Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 11:56, 7 May 2021 (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]

Pro forma. Applied range blocks for 2 weeks. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 11:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22 February 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Condo951795

1) The sockpuppeteer in question, Jeneral28's last account to be banned (User:BlueD954) was banned on the 2 May 2021, and this new account became regularly active on the 4 May 2021.

2) This account edits many of the same articles that Jeneral28 and his sockpuppets did, for example: (I have included a small number of example edits on each article)

  • British Government frontbench (Jeneral28's confirmed sockpuppets BlueD954 and Cantab1985 have the 4th and 6th most edits on the page respectively, whilst this user is not far behind in 9th. (see [41])
    • [42] – 11 September 2021
    • [43] – 4 November 2021
    • [44] – 19 December 2021
  • The Naked Chef (Once more BlueD954 heavily edited this article)
    • [51] – 7 November 2021
    • [52] – 1 December 2021
  • And others

3) This users MoS is consistent with those of Jeneral28 and his sockpuppets. As noted in previous investigations:

  • Regarding Jeneral28, Cantab1985, JessPavarocks, ACSilver, and 116.12.147.235: "It is worth noting that both usernames have the unusual practice of putting references in the edit summary rather than the main space of an article when editing", "Adding references to the edit summary", "Adding references to the edit summary", "user is adding references to the edit summary", and "putting URLs directly in edit summaries".
    • [55] – 6 May 2021
    • [56] – 11 September 2021
    • [57] – 24 November 2021
    • [58] – 8 February 2022
  • As I noted in my previous investigation into BlueD954 here, I noticed that Jeneral28 and his sockpuppets have a very distinct manner of writing on talk pages, which usually consists of a link, followed by a line of text on the next line, and signed on the next line again.
    • [59] – 13 June 2021
    • [60] – 25 August 2021
    • [61] – 10 September 2021
    • [62] – 11 September 2021
    • [63] – 11 September 2021
    • [64] – 15 September 2021
  • As noted about another one of Jeneral28's sockpuppet's Foxhound66, "snippy edits bordering on written abuse and personal attacks"
    • [65] – 29 August 2021

HDev411

1) Once more the account became active on 4 May 2021, just after BlueD954 was blocked from editing.

2) Editing these two niche articles around the same time as Condo951795:

3) Again the unusual practice of links in the edit summary, instead of the written prose:

4) The mix of military, food, and intelligence related edits match that of the previous sockpuppets. SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 17:14, 22 February 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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jeneral28/Archive&oldid=1143702799"