Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


JoshuSasori

JoshuSasori ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
25 January 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


The three IPs are obviously the same person, and he/she has not hidden this fact. [1] [2] [3] [4] JoshuSasori, the user I believe to be the sockmaster, was banned indefinitely a few days ago for making personal attacks against me and harassing me across numerous articles. After this ban, a number of IP accounts suddenly appeared and started making very similar edits to JoshuSasori. Given that these accounts have been limited to posting on move requests, it seems highly unlikely that this is just some non-Wikipedian who happened to, for instance, request to revert a recent move of an article on an obscure Japanese film as their first edit. This activity is, however, highly consistent with JoshuSasori's former activities. It is also hard to take as coincidence that this user with similar activities would show up only a couple of days after JoshuSasori was banned. [5] Further, if they are indeed the same person, then JoshuSasori has been evading a ban imposed on him for name-calling, disruptive behaviour and making a personal threat against me. He would also have used his puppets to cast two votes in Talk:Shōtarō Ikenami#Requested move to Shotaro Ikenami, turning the move request from 3:2 against, to a 3:3 tie. [6] [7] elvenscout742 ( talk) 07:51, 25 January 2013 (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
25 January 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

[1] [2] [3] [4]

The above IPs are all the same person, and have not hidden that fact. [8] [9] [10] [11] JoshuSasori, the user I believe to be the sockmaster, was indefinitely blocked for harassing me. Shortly after JoshuSasori was blocked, the above IPs all started editing in very similar areas to him, and following me to at least one entirely unrelated discussion. [12] If I am right, then JoshuSasori has not only been evading his block, but voting multiple times on Talk:Shōtarō Ikenami#Requested move to Shotaro Ikenami. I previously posted an SPI here for three of the IPs, and they were blocked for a week, but because it's a dynamic IP that doesn't seem to have hindered their activities much. This needs a CheckUser and if they are found to be the same a range block will be necessary. JoshuSasori, shortly before being blocked, followed me to Talk:Tales of Moonlight and Rain and voted against me, derailing an RM where there would otherwise have been a clear consensus. When I re-posted the RM (the obvious reason for the previous close was JoshuSasori following me, and he is blocked), his sockpuppet 123.225.49.155 appeared and offered the same argument, and this is currently threatening to derail the RM a second time. User:Cuchullain, User:TParis and User:In ictu oculi have all also noted this. elvenscout742 ( talk) 02:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC) reply

I added 123.224.225.47 ( talk · contribs · count). Clearly related. Cúchullain t/ c 16:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Additionally, I should point out that the recent edits [13] [14] [15] closely resemble a pattern of behaviour JoshuSasori showed elsewhere. [16] [17] In both cases, I was guilty of introducing a minor technical error (on Dreams (1990 film) it was removing some faulty material without removing other faulty material that depended on it; on Tales of Moonlight and Rain it was not attributing the text I translated to Japanese Wikipedia), and instead of directly informing me of my error, or fixing the error him/herself, the user seized on the opportunity to blankly revert me. elvenscout742 ( talk) 04:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Added 124.85.41.57 ( talk · contribs · count) based on [18] and [19]. We probably need to semi-protect that article.-- Cúchullain t/ c 14:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Agreed. Even if this weren't a sock issue, this user is still engaging in disruptive behaviour similar to JS. elvenscout742 ( talk) 15:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC) reply
I can't do any more without violating it myself, but the user is now close to violating 3RR on the article. [20] [21] [22] elvenscout742 ( talk) 15:26, 5 February 2013 (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
So how do we deal with a case like this then? Can we get a range block anyway? elvenscout742 ( talk) 02:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC) reply
In my opinion, the range would be too large to rangeblock. -- Rs chen 7754 02:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Well, if a rangeblock is out of the question, how about protecting the pages where these IPs have been making disruptive edits from anon edits? elvenscout742 ( talk) 04:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Additionally, since the IP keeps changing, all of the RMs it has been involved in have one vote from a user with no other edits. I have asked the user to register an account numerous times now, to avoid this problem, but have been ignored. elvenscout742 ( talk) 04:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC) reply
20 February 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

The Mysterious Island account was created [23] only two days after JoshuSasori was blocked [24] and has proceeded to make over 1000 edits. They work in the same areas (particularly Japanese film), and have edited 185 of the same articles. Mysterious Island is too knowledgeable to be a new editor and follows much of Joshu's MO, including replacing Japanese names with English translations (compare [25] and [26]), removing or altering macrons - often as the very next edit after Joshu ( [27] and [28]; [29] and [30], etc.), and participating in RMs to do the same.
However, evidence from today clinches it as far as I'm concerned: After Elvenscout742 moved Yoko Ogawa to Yōko Ogawa, an obvious Joshu sock started an RM to remove the macron. When someone opposed, Mysterious Island showed up to move the page anyway. Call me cynical, but this looks like Joshu, unable to move the page unilaterally as an anon, bringing in his good hand sock to get his way. If it is Joshu, he's also double-voted at least in this RM started by a sockpuppet. Cúchullain t/ c 02:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC) Cúchullain t/ c 02:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

This sockpuppet investigation was opened on behalf of Elvenscout742 in an effort to evade scrutiny of his actions. See this. Mysterious Island ( talk) 02:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC) reply

Asking someone a question on their public talkpage isn't evading scrutiny. Sockpuppetry on the other hand... At any rate, please respond to the evidence (collected on no one's behalf but mine).-- Cúchullain t/ c 02:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Seems clear that MeNoLike123 is another sock; it's already been blocked, but shows the extent of the hounding and disruption.-- Cúchullain t/ c 02:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC) reply
I didn't know IP users were unable to move pages over redirects by themselves, which is why I said I "suspect" [31] Mysterious Island of being connected with JoshuSasori, but the above evidence is pretty convincing. I first suspected MI when, like JoshuSasori, they picked up on a minor technical glitch in an edit I had made and used it as an excuse to revert me completely. [32] [33] Needless to say, this reminded me somewhat of JoshuSasori's actions on Dreams (1990 film) and Double Suicide of Sonezaki. [34] [35] I informed User:TParis (the admin responsible for blocking JoshuSasori in the first place [36]) of my concern by e-mail, and he responded (again by e-mail) that while I was right to be concerned, I should wait until Mysterious Island shows a more recurrent pattern of harassing me like JoshuSasori did. The second bad faith revert of a move I made in as many weeks was enough to make me publicly express my concern to Cuchullain. [37] [38] [39] And so here we are.
I was unaware of MeNoLike123's existence until Cuchullain's post above, but it is somewhat disturbing to me that an account could show up out of the blue and revert a bunch of my edits in bad faith -- were this one not so blatant about it, it might have gotten away with it. (JoshuSasori's activities between mid-December and mid-January were divided about 50-50 between removing macrons and undoing every edit I made -- obviously this got under my skin.)
elvenscout742 ( talk) 13:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Additionally, I note that Mysterious Island's above failure to make any concrete defense against the allegations, instead expecting other users to trawl through my edit history to see my "actions" that are "evading scrutiny", closely resembles JoshuSasori's comments on both DRN and ANI shortly before getting blocked. (Digging up JoshuSasori's actual posts in which he failed to provide valid arguments is difficult because his contributions list is riddled with him making minor tweaks to comments he had already posted, but other impartial users agreed with this. [40] [41] [42]) Additionally, I should note that I have not made any attempt to "evade scrutiny": I was concerned that posting a third JoshuSasori SPI in less than a month would be unseemly, [43] and since five or six users have now taken note of JoshuSasori's obvious sockpuppetry ( In ictu oculi, TParis, Cuchullain, Yunshui, Salvio giuliano and kinda-sorta Lukeno94, to name a few for the record) I decided to let Cuchullain start the investigation for this one. (Cuchullain was actually the first to use the word "sockpuppet" in reference to Mysterious Island, as well. [44]) elvenscout742 ( talk) 14:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC) reply
By the way, do I have to tell all the above users that they were name-dropped in this SPI? elvenscout742 ( talk) 14:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC) reply
From the WP:SPI main page: "Notification is courteous but isn't mandatory, and in some cases it may be sub-optimal. Use your best judgement." -- BDD ( talk) 22:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC) reply
I noticed that too. I guess the one that was added is a recent one. I think general consensus is that all of these anons (and there are a lot of them) are JoshuSasori, but that nothing can be done about them except for possibly a few strategic range-blocks and semi-protections. That's why I don't particular see the point of mentioning any of the IPs in the above Suspected sockpuppets except the one that RMed Yoko Ogawa and possibly the ones that have voted with Mysterious Island in other RMs. elvenscout742 ( talk) 03:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I'd say it's fairly obvious that the IP I reverted (with a POINTy edit summary that I won't apologize for - I take a dim view of sock puppeters and people who violate WP:HOUND) is a sock. I also don't see why it would be "unseemly" to have three SPIs on the same person in a month - after all, they are a prolific sock user, and you're clearly being hounded. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Three SPIs on the same person by the same person. My having not been on good terms with JoshuSasori before he got blocked is obvious, and while there is no longer any doubt in anyone's mind that JoshuSasori controls the anons, maybe I was disappointed that nothing substantial could be done about it, and chose to pick on some random new user. That's why, when Cuchullain first suggested Mysterious Island might be a sock, I asked that he start the SPI this time. Also, my lack of knowledge of moving over redirects and IP accounts meant that I missed the single most important piece of circumstantial evidence, which CC deftly caught. elvenscout742 ( talk) 08:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Amazed at gullibility of Wikipedia administrators
    1. JoshuSasori didn't hound Trollvenlout, that is truly ridiculous. Clear evidence was presented that Trollvenlout was in fact hounding the other editor, which was completely ignored. After JoshuSasori was blocked, Trollvenlout, who'd been relentlessly trolling and hounding after JS every day on Japanese cinema pages until then, did not make a single edit on the Japanese cinema pages for two entire weeks. Two entire fucking weeks, you brain-damaged chipmunks. Check his edit records, if you doubt it. Or is that too much effort for you, you fucking pathetic, ludicrous excuses for administrators?
    2. Just how difficult is it to change the style of edit summaries? Jeez, you people are gullible. Laughable, and ludicrous, and incredible at the same time.
    3. None of the anonymous editors is JoshuSasori. Neither is Menolike123. How fucking stupid are you? The anon repeatedly pointed out where he'd interacted with JS on various pages, and yet you fucking pointy-headed lunatics invented some fucked-up rationalization after another rather than face the obvious fact: I'm not the only user who doesn't like Trollvenlout. In fact it was pretty hilarious when Trollvenlout started accusing that IP user of being JoshuSasori, I started doing things like copying articles like Reiko Dan right out of the JoshuSasori workspace, but none of you clueless gullible fuckwits even noticed, and you went on trying to block that poor fellow. Good luck to him though. What a bunch of pathetic gullible idiots Wiki admins are to believe Trollvenlout that it was a sock puppet.
    4. Trollvenlout was not only lying about me but about Tristan noir. It took TEN FUCKING MINUTES to find THREE PLACES where the cunt was lying about Tristan noir. TEN FUCKING MINUTES looking through the edit summaries to find THREE blatant lies from Trollvenlout. What the fuck is wrong with you morons to block Tristan on the basis of Trollvenlout's fucking obvious lies? Utterly fucking incredible.
    5. JoshuSasori has a far more productive edit record than Trollvenlout, or indeed a lot of the incompetent, gullible, sadistic, and semi-literate (I'm talking about you, TParis) administrators. I give you almost all of Kaneto Shindo, Yasujiro Ozu, Yusaku Matsuda, multiple film articles and others. Just look through his edit records. In contrast, most of the Trollvenlout's output, who has a lower edit count than JS in total, consists of talk page bickering, and adding minor pieces of original research bullshit to articles. When the cunt isn't busy arse-licking Wikipedia administrators.
  • You are a bunch of gullible, ludicrous, incompetent fuckwits. Mysterious Island ( talk) 09:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
1. JoshuSasori followed me to perhaps several dozen articles between December 16-ish and January 21. I "followed" him to the articles he invited me to when he posted on WikiProject Japan that there was an RM in progress, and to three or four articles he boasted on his user page of having created and on which he violated MOSJ. JoshuSasori never presented any evidence that I was "hounding" him, instead demanding that TParis and other admins (and several other mediators) "check Elvenscout742's edit history".
2. No one was legitimately fooled by JoshuSasori's ruse. I pointed out to TParis in my e-mail that JoshuSasori was obviously just hiding behind these overly polite edit summaries. Can we get an indef block now that JoshuSasori has admitted to being JoshuSasori??
3. Doesn't matter. The anons are hounding me, doing the exact same things that got JoshuSasori blocked, and need to be stopped.
4. No. I noticed. TParis noticed. Cuchullain had no reason to follow this new account, but when I pointed it out Cuchullain immediately realized this was sockpuppetry.
5. Follow Tristan noir's record. He was not here to edit Wikipedia. He spent four years doing nothing but maintaining a spam article that existed to advertise a self-published book. You can't see that article anymore, because it was copy-pasted from an article in an online poetry magazine that also advertized the book. Where did I lie about Tristan noir, exactly??
6. Yes, JoshuSasori worked on a few good articles. But he had WP:OWN issues, and blocked me from making constructive edits to those same articles. And other articles, on classical Japanese literature, an area about which JoshuSasori clearly knows nothing.
Does CheckUser even still go through now that JoshuSasori lifted his own smokescreen? What happens now? elvenscout742 ( talk) 11:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
22 February 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Quack quack. Sure, it's theoretically possible there's a new user out there with an understanding of RM and a desire to change some Japanese names. It seems less likely, though, that said user would use "Who do you think I am? If you suspect me of being someone's sockpuppet, open the SPI." as his or her edit summary for every one of his or her edits. So I decided to follow the advice therein. BDD ( talk) 16:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC) reply

This IP re-opened RMs opened earlier today by 123.225.56.62 ( talk · contribs · count) and 123.224.195.138 ( talk · contribs · count), who have been blocked by TParis. Most of these RMs are second or third attempts at moves originally initiated by other socks.-- Cúchullain t/ c 16:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC) reply
I've added one more, 124.102.71.246 ( talk · contribs · count), who went back and re-re-restarted the same RMs immediately after the previous IP was blocked-- Cúchullain t/ c 20:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Comments by other users

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

No, I'm neither JoshuSasori nor Mysterious Island (JoshuSasori's sockpuppet). Please see the evidence below.

1. At the very same time (around 15:30, 19 February 2013) when I was editing Yoshishige Yoshida as 124.85.41.37, Mysterious Island was editing Donald Richie, Talk:Yūji Oda and Talk:Edogawa Rampo. So I'm not the same person as Mysterious Island.

2. JoshuSasori opposed the requested move at Talk:Densha Otoko (film), which I had nominated as 123.225.44.23. Additionally, I removed the photo from Takayuki Yamada, which he/she had previously restored twice.

3. JoshuSasori undid my edit as 123.224.83.130 at Kōji Yakusho, which was due to my fault.

4. JoshuSasori also reverted my edit at Manami Konishi, which was due to my removal of material without explanation. The next day, I reverted again with explaining the reason in the edit summary.

5. See also Talk:Shigehiko Hasumi, where he/she and I had a truly heated discussion. In fact, JoshuSasori seemed to think I was another editor who had mediated there.

So I'm not the same person as JoshuSasori. 123.224.191.243 ( talk) 17:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC) reply

Nice try. 124.85.41.37, who you admit to being, also edited both Yūji Oda [45] and Talk:Yūji Oda [46] at the same time confirmed sock Mysterious Island was editing the page. [47] And today alone, you started move requests at articles where Joshu previously made the exact same request, for instance Ryōko Hirosue, [48] which was opened earlier today Special:Contributions/123.225.56.62 [49] and was previously opened by Mysterious Island. [50] Joshu, it's time to find another hobby.-- Cúchullain t/ c 17:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Yes, I also edited Yūji Oda and Talk:Yūji Oda as the same IP, both of which Mysterious Island edited over an hour earlier (not "the same time"). But it's just because I checked WP:RM immediately after editing Yoshishige Yoshida. And after Cuchullain closed Mysterious Island's move request alongside Talk:Ryōko Hirosue yesterday, I nominated both myself today, because I think they should be moved. Did I do something wrong? 123.224.191.243 ( talk) 17:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC) reply
This is farcical. You're not even bothering to disguise yourself with new arguments in the RMs. You seem to think this is a WP:GAME, that you can pull the wool over our eyes by working multiple socks on an article at the same time. -- BDD ( talk) 17:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC) reply
I don't think this is a WP:GAME. Such accusation is completely irrelevant.
"Without exception, you must supply clear simple evidence (diffs and any reasonable deductions and impressions as a result) showing that the accounts you list are likely to be operated by the same individual" ( WP:SPI). If you can't supply any clear simple evidence, then why are you here now? 123.224.191.243 ( talk) 17:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC) reply

The anon has been blocked by TParis.-- Cúchullain t/ c 20:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC) reply

About 30 of these IPs have shown up harassing me alone in the last month or so. I'd say at least a few others have been making RMs that I didn't notice. And some of them may even have made positive edits. My point is that there are a huge number of these IPs. They're obviously JoshuSasori, but ... what are we going to do about it? Ryulong suggested some well-targeted rangeblocks would work. But I actually logged out and made an edit and found out that I'm also in the 123.../124.../125... range. (>_<) elvenscout742 ( talk) 14:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

-- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC) reply

06 May 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


I'm filing this on behalf of a retired user (who was harrassed off-wiki by Sasori) - my own, admittedly cursory, check of the contribs for the user's listed above suggests similar editing areas and habits to Sasori, but I haven't spotted anything especially blatant. Requesting checkuser for a reasonably definite yay or nay. Yunshui  雲‍ 水 19:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Looks like I got the wrong end of the stick - I am (not) Iron Man is not under suspicion here, only Wistchars. Apologies to IANM - striking from the SPI. Yunshui  雲‍ 水 00:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Additional evidence: note that Wistchars article on Mark Schilling seems to have been drawn directly from Sasori's draft (currently hosted by LittleBenW) - this behaviour (creating articles from drafts in Sasori's workspace) was a confessed characteristic of known sock Mysterious Island, intended to thumb the nose at "gullible fuckwits" in the admin corps. Yunshui  雲‍ 水 21:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Comments by other users

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

Believe what you want, I'm not a sockpuppet... I am (not) Iron Man ( talk) 23:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
06 August 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Both accounts primarily edit in Japanese cinema area. Slowends shares JS's infamous hatred of macronsdiacritics. [51] Slowends account created while last sock, Wistchars, was under investigation, [52] [53] but delayed first edit [54] until after Wistchars blocked, [55] perhaps to avoid CU ending him before he starts. Slowends shares JoshuSasori's interest in peer review for the article on the film Ugetsu Monogatari. [56] Like Wistchars, Slowends enjoys sharing dummy barnstars with his own IP socks. [57] [58] Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 10:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Even though I filed this SPI incorrectly, and no one told him, and I had never interacted with him, Slowends showed up here almost immediately and called me a bunch of vulgar names in Japanese. [59] This indicates that he (JoshuSasori) is still following my activities very closely. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 11:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Comments by other users

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

Trollvenlout/屁汁野郎 has just driven one productive editor off Wikipedia with a "wall of text" attack on the administrator's notice board. Now 屁汁野郎 wants to drive another one off. What is the point of it, 屁汁野郎? Why don't you spend your time and verbal abilities on making Wikipedia pages. Why do you enjoy destroying other editors? And even more mysteriously, why do the administrators support this fruitcake in his antics? 窓際族の屁汁野郎! Slowends ( talk) 11:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC) reply

  • The above is clear evidence that Slowends is a sockpuppet. Their comment above looks a lot like the sort JoshuSasori made frequently. Hijiri, the new Echo system means that whenever a name is linked somewhere, the user will get a notification; hence why they found this so easily. CU is more useful for sleepers than proving this case, as the last sock in the SPI archive was from May. Also, the above statement is laden with personal attacks, particularly the Japanese comments, if an online translation is to be believed; so at the very least, Slowends needs an NPA block. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC) reply
屁汁野郎 could be translated as "shitbastard". But it's the English insult "Trollvenlout" that is more interesting. As far as I recall JoshuSasori coined that name, and last used on-wiki, over two months before the Slowends account was created. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 12:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
29 August 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


JoshuSasori was in the habit of calling Hijiri88 a troll [60]. And now we have a brand new editor posting [61]. Granted, Hijiri88 was in conflict with a half a dozen other banned users, so it could be another one of those, but a check-user can determine that. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 01:24, 29 August 2013 (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 September 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

WP:DUCK. SPA for attack on Hijiri88; identifies as sock of unnamed previous user in first post. In ictu oculi ( talk) 01:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC) reply

The user was not unnamed. Look more closely at the post you just linked to. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 02:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC) reply


103.1.153.253 is VPN presumably Malaysia City: Kuala Lumpur. Added also a third Sock Did I break your concentration? already blocked by Giant Snowman, a sock leaving messages for other socks. In ictu oculi ( talk) 11:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Comments by other users

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

I think it would be a good idea to run a check user.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 12:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Wow. Toddy1, if you don't cease your unprovoked campaign of harassment and don't stop defending JoshuSasori you're probably headed for a world of pain. Just ask LittleBenW how this course of action worked out for him. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 15:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Uh, Hijiri, it's equally possible that Toddy1 thinks it is a good idea to CU this account in case there are any more sleepers, even if they have defended Joshu in the past - I think a CU should be run for sleepers. Also, threatening people this clearly in that way is really not a good idea, and gives the likes of Joshu more ammunition... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Check the post Toddy made on the sock's talk page immediately before posting here. "Hijiri and IIO are accusing you of being a sockpuppet, so please comment there." He stopped just short of saying "I know you're really a good person and Hijiri is a dog who should be blocked" (although he said that last part a bunch of times already anyway, and has yet to apologize). I know for a fact that whether or not there are sleepers, JS almost certainly has another "good" sock along the lines of Mysterious Island, Wistchars and Slowends. CU would save me some time checking around the Japanese cinema articles and JoshuSasori's old workspace, but... Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 15:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I'm well aware of what Toddy1 said, Hijiri, but you seriously need to calm down before you get yourself in some very hot water. And regardless of whether Toddy1 is defending Joshu or not, your threat was out of line and only strengthens your opponents' cases. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Yeah, I know. That's why I softened it in my latest response on ANI, and why I intend not to post in that thread again. It's also why I apologized for my use of foul language yesterday. I in fact thought we were done, but then Toddy started provoking me again. If it continues after this SPI and that ANI thread ar closed I'm going to request an IBAN. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 15:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC) reply
I have very good reason to think that this person has at least one active "good hat" sock puppet; maybe more. However, bearing in mind the bullying I have received, I am not willing to name them. If he/she is innocent, my naming him/her here will expose him/her to bullying, harassment and bear-baiting just as I have received in the past week. We very much need a check user.
I find Hijiri88's reaction to my asking for a check user on the suspected sock rather puzzling. I would have expected him/her to be delighted if a check user uncovered more socks of someone who has a grudge against Hijiri88.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 07:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC) reply
"bullying, harassment and bear-baiting I have received" - Toddy1, what are you doing here anyway? Sorry but I don't recognise you as a contributor to WP Japan articles so I'm wondering what value exactly you're bringing to SPI on this. In ictu oculi ( talk)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

I don't know if it's User:JoshuSasori or not, but it's obviously a sock, since, well, it basically explicitly states to having been in past disputes with Hijiri88. I've indeff'd the account; if someone still wants to run a CU to find out who the master is or look for sleepers, feel free. Qwyrxian ( talk) 12:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC) reply

11 September 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Comments by other users

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

  • I'd be inclined to agree with "Did I break your concentration?", but what's wrong with the other account? I see one Japanese-related RM, and they're obviously not a new user (the user they claim to be an alternate account of has no live edits, so they've used something else, or edited as an IP) but I can't see any convincing evidence that they're Joshu - and you've not provided any evidence for either account being Joshu :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC) reply

@ Lukeno94: please see above, for some reason my earlier post of evidence didn't catch. In ictu oculi ( talk) 16:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


13 September 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

Self admits to being JoshuSasori on Toddy1's Talk page and Nishidani's talk respectively. Also has given up/compromised all the passwords on User talk:Hiding in a bowl of rice page. In ictu oculi ( talk) 02:53, 13 September 2013 (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 October 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Probably a waste of time for a 1-edit sock, but evident given the trouble on that 1 page so going through the motions for housekeeping purposes in case it gets used again. In ictu oculi ( talk) 07:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Anyone who disagrees with you is a sockpuppet aren't they?-- Toddy1 ( talk) 08:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Toddy1, if you've got absolutely nothing constructive to say, then don't waste everyone else's time by commenting. If you really can't stop yourself, at least bother to look where you should place it. JoshuSasori is a CBANNED sockmaster, so every potential sock needs investigating, to either exonerate them, or prove their guilt. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • The editor has made one edit to Wikipedia. There is absolutely no evidence that he/she is a sock of anyone. Or if there is, where is it? Wikipedia has a policy of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. It is a breach of that policy to assume that anyone who disagrees with you is a sock puppet on the basis of no evidence other than that they disagreed with you.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 17:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • The irony of you citing that policy, whilst clearly assuming bad faith yourself, is incredible. This user is clearly not new - they've cited two Wikipedia policies/guidelines/essays in a move request. On a Japanese film. If it's not a JoshuSasori sock, it's a sock of someone else, and it is incredibly naive to assume otherwise - unless you simply want to carry on your crusade against IIO and Hijiri. Oh wait, that's exactly what you are doing. Please go away and stop wasting people's time. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • My opinion as an uninvolved editor at the RM in question is that Papasrune is almost certainly a sock, either of Joshu or Kauffner ( SPI). Joshu and Kauffner hold grudges against Hijiri and IIO, respectively, and Kauffner generally dislikes foreign titles and those with diacritics. I can't remember offhand whether Joshu was the same way or if he just liked to contradict Hijiri at every turn. I'm afraid I can't tell if Papasrune's quack matches either one specifically—they both fit the bill (har har). -- BDD ( talk) 18:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Match on style mainly, also User:Papasrune resembles several former JoshuSasori (woman-prisoner scorpion) sock names User:Roastliras User:Slowends User:Trollvenlout User:Wangedgar User:Wistchars. Plus Kauffner was busy with several big time socks on his own SPI archive. Inexplicable. In ictu oculi ( talk) 19:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Checkuser note: He is very  Likely related to JoshuSasori. Since he's essentially cloning the other sockpuppets' votes, I'd say it's definitely him. Also  Confirmed as Papasrune ( talk · contribs) are:

11 July 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


It's been a really long time, but the reason for that is probably because I stopped keeping an eye out for tell-tale socks of this user when he (mostly) stopped his off-wiki harassment of me, not because there was any good reason to believe he wasn't evading his ban.

  • The NYFO account's first edit doesn't look like an editor's typical first edit, tagging a sentence buried quite deep in an article on a filmmaker JS's original account had edited frequently. [62] [63]
  • The NYFO account has a fair degree of overlap with the JoshuSasori account and the most prolific confirmed sock. [64] (The large number of "0"s is more because of the low level of activity -- 270 edits in 39 months -- than because the three don't have common areas of interest.)
  • NYFO appears, based on his edits to UK politicians and the like, to be based in the UK; JoshuSasori, if I recall correctly, used British spelling in articles and if I recall correctly insulted me on one occasion using specifically British slang. Both editors also appear to be readers of the British film magazine Sight & Sound. [65] (I can dig up the diffs of both if necessary, but the NYFO ones are the account's most recent edits, and this is a really minor point anyway.)
  • Several of the NYFO account's early edits look like "See, I'm totally not JoshuSasori! I added diacritics!" [66] [67] which is something JS was known to do. The Tokyo IPs in the archives frequently touted their supposedly having conflicted with the logged-in JS shortly before his block, and I'm 90% certain JS created the Shahwould ( talk · contribs) account, whose sole purpose was adding macrons to Japanese film articles, as a joe-job so he could talk on his blog about how I was actively socking -- it would be an astonishing coincidence otherwise.
    • This would be suspicious enough by itself, but by 2015 the "diacritic wars" (or at least the "macron wars" in articles on Japanese cinema) were no longer a thing, so a new account re-stoking them out of the blue would have been super fishy.
  • The only non-Japanese film article on JoshuSasori's top ten most edited was Django Unchained, which was the "current" film by Quentin Tarantino, and Tarantino also appears to be one of the non-Japanese filmmakers NYFO is interested in. [68]
  • The NYFO account's two most-edited pages are Tokyo Story and the closely-related Yasujirō Ozu, the latter of which was so important to JS that not only was it his main account's third most-edited article but all of the "good hand" socks (the ones that weren't created specifically to troll me, which were mostly caught by CU) have edited it.
  • The NYFO account linked an obscure article that was basically the sole work of the Mysterious Island account. [69] [70]
  • The NYFO account, which had not and has not otherwise expressed any interest in classical Japanese poetry, showed up on an article I was editing, in a manner that would have been near-impossible to explain without assuming it was monitoring me. [71] My name was showing up on ANI at the time, but why would an editor who never posted to ANI randomly follow someone who was mentioned on ANI to an article that wasn't mentioned on ANI?
  • Just per what's demonstrated above we have (1) a British Wikipedian, (2) who is interested in the films of Quentin Tarantino, (3) who is very interested in the films of Yasujiro Ozu, (4) who is at least aware of the obscure 1960s Wakadaishō series, (5) and was monitoring my edits inexplicably in 2015. Two or three of these could be a simple coincidence, but not all five, and especially not the last one; there's absolutely no overlap between Ariwara no Narihira and the rest of this account's edits.

Requesting CU because a formerly prolific sockpuppeteer with a currently live account, but said account not being very active, implies the existence of others. I know the CU data for JS is all very stale, but if NYFO has other accounts they should show up (I think?). The last few bullet points above have me absolutely convinced that NYFO is JoshuSasori.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 13:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 13:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Added Shahwould as a formality. The account is extremely stale, and I doubt its owner even remembers the password, but it was an obvious joe-job (JS started talking off-wiki about how it was me almost immediately), and I don't think I'm technically allowed say that without formally requesting that it be blocked as a sock. Per the above, I don't see much point in doing so, but part of the above evidence against NYFO depended on the assertion that SW was also a sock. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 09:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply
If I withdraw my CU request will this attract attention sooner? The behavioral evidence is airtight, and I don't even know if CU can be used to check for sleepers in cases like this. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 18:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC) reply
If I recall correctly, talking about my "copious free time" was another recurring characteristic of JS's attacks. See for example this. Note also that NYFOM has not explained how he mysteriously came across that one low-vis article on a ninth-century Japanese poet. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 23:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Thanks for the notification. Seems like Hijiri88 has a lot of free time, one might even say "copious free time" is his motto. Sorry but I don't know anything about any of this. What's the problem here? I haven't vandalised any articles. NotYourFathersOldsmobile ( talk) 13:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

24 December 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


Same basic deal as last time: strong interest in Japanese cinema [72] and intense dislike of me (even to the point of hounding). These two factors sent up red flags for me immediately, with the only reason not to open an SPI being a lack of a "smoking gun" like the Narihira edit NYFOM made, but the lack of such a smoking gun doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't the same person; given the number of accounts JS was operating back in 2013, I wouldn't be surprised if, during the four years no one was checking for new socks, he went through a large number of throwaway accounts, and examining this accounts earlier edits could probably connect it to some other account that mysteriously stopped editing around the same time, which could probably be connected to another, and so on... And this throwaway account definitely was someone's sock, or at the very least a troll trying to undermine the WP:GA system -- an account with 2K edits and 29 GA reviews looks very much like either an experienced editor editing under a new account without disclosing their old accounts, or a troll. My money (I'd say there's about a 90% chance) is on the former, but in either case their GA passes (the vast majority of their reviews, it seems) should probably be reexamined, and doing so if they were already blocked as a sock would be a lot easier. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 03:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC) Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 03:47, 24 December 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

Suspected puppet hasn't edited in four months. Closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 14:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC) reply

12 March 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

All three of these accounts share JoshuSasori's dislike of macrons in articles on Japanese topics [73] [74] [75] [76] as well as a suspicious interest in me and whatever it is I'm up to. [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] Moreover, the three accounts have !voted with each other in discussions at a rate a bit too incredible to be accepted as a coincidence given their low edit counts. [86] [87] [88] (Colin Gerhard and Patiodweller have 206 and 329, respectively, and while Worldlywise, the oldest account, has 2,359, all but a tiny portion are -- probably semi-automated -- minor article edits, since 1,550 of his edit summaries have included the words "Olympic results" and all but 85 have been marked as minor.)

Requesting CU even though the main account is very stale for two reasons: (i) the fact that these accounts have been showing up out of the woodwork every now and then for over seven years makes it very likely there are other sleepers, and (ii) even if the accounts cannot be CU-connected to JoshuSasori, they are very likely connected to each other and possibly to other sock accounts.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 06:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Added Funtoedit1212. This and this are just too similar relative to the other diffs linked above to be accepted as an accidental coincidence. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 08:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

  • Well, I for one can say that I have no connection to those other accounts listed. I never edit with other accounts. Anyway, it's fine if someone wants to run a checkuser though. I don't have anything to hide. Worldlywise ( talk) 17:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

03 October 2020

Suspected sockpuppets


WP:DUCK. Account apparently created for the sole purpose of insulting at me on the talk page of an article on an old Japanese film (JS actually followed me to the same article previously, shortly before his first block). Requesting CU because there are likely to be other sleepers. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 00:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC) reply

@ AmandaNP: It was my belief that established patterns clearly demonstrated in the SPI archives didn't require evidence to be presented with each new filing. Sorry if I am misreading something. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 01:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC) reply
@ AmandaNP: Okay, this might get into WP:BEANS territory, but if what you mean is that you needed more than one edit under the account in question to perform a check, I had no idea that this was the case, nor apparently any way of finding out. (I am pretty sure I've seen accounts with no edits on English Wikipedia get CU-blocked based on their login history or whatever, but I might be misremembering.) If it is indeed the case that CU cannot be performed without multiple Wikipedia edits, then WP:SOCK's wording If you believe someone is using sockpuppets or meat puppets, you should create a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. is quite problematic -- if I believe in good faith that there is sockpuppetry afoot, I'm essentially violating the policy by doing anything other than filing an SPI, but the direct effect of doing so is just going to be that they don't make any more edits while logged into that account, thus making CU permanently impossible...? If you are technically able to run a check but it would just be a violation for you to do so without more direct evidence, well ... again, I can appreciate why the rules are apparently kept under wraps, but we know JoshuSasori was sitebanned in March 2013 before making multiple sock accounts that were still actively editing at least as recently as September 2018 (which just happens to be the last time I checked). If that and the shared interest in Kurosawa films aren't convincing enough, I'm happy to agree to disagree and drop the issue until something else happens. Sorry for pinging you again (I wasn't sure if you are watching this page and didn't want to give the impression of leaving you high and dry and coming back the better part of two days later), and happy editing. :-) Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 06:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC) reply
Amanda (not pinging you yet since I don't particularly "want" you to look at this yet, but needed to get on the record that I was still here): Apologies for the lateness. I had just given up before I got your ping, and honestly JoshuSasori's specific editing patterns are not something I've thought about (or much wanted to think about) for many years, so I've had to go back through a number of his edits and I'm still nowhere near done. In 2018 I had a "smoking gun" (a Japanese cinema-focused editor randomly showed up to an article on an unrelated topic I was editing) but here the closest thing to a smoking gun that was immediately apparent was the newness of the account, which I admit makes it look more like a sock of just about anyone than specifically JoshuSasori. Anyway, I'm going to list what I've got so far, but I am not done, so I'm hoping I can add to it incrementally over the next few days:
  • This edit by a known (early) JoshuSasori sock was likely meant to bait/troll me or whoever else into opening an SPI that would go nowhere and leave egg on my face, which is what HeyHoNonny's first three edits did by not actually answering my question even though he almost definitely had the answer on-hand as he provided it immediately after I finally edited the article. [89] [90]
  • JoshuSasori has also previously baited me into making article edits he almost certainly intended to revert. [91] [92] [93]
  • This edit shows an idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:NOR -- specifically that it applies to talk page discussion -- similar to JoshuSasori's interpretation expressed here, here and here.
  • While it's not JS-specific, such an interpretation of a specific Wikipedia policy seems especially suspect coming from an editor who is supposedly brand new to the project, supporting the assertion that HeyHoNonny is a sock.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 17:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC) reply
@ AmandaNP: Sorry to be late, but if the above is not convincing, could you just close this with no action? I've found myself unable to do much sleuthing in the past five days, and while I'm sure more searching would come up with more evidence, I would just really rather be building articles or doing something else rather than looking up old JoshuSasori diffs. It's pretty obvious that even if HHN is not a sock it's definitely at least a troll (and those aren7t mutually exclusive, because JoshuSasori was a troll), and devoting more time to him either way is counter-productive. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 01:12, 14 October 2020 (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

  •  Check declined by a checkuser - Beyond having nothing to compare to, 1 edit stating a simple fact is not evidence alone that someone is stalking or harassing you. We're going to need more to run this check. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • @ Hijiri88: established patterns when they can be narrowed down to being likely only one person, sure. But not simply editing the same article or topic otherwise I could CU almost every editor on Wikipedia. If you can show that a past sock made similar changes, we can look at that, but i'm not seeing it here. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • @ Hijiri88: It is technically possible (those zero edit CU blocked accounts are found usually by CUing someone else though). I do get the sockmaster has a history, but what you are suggesting is similar to having property stolen on a block, and to find it, we just search everyone's house on that block. It's an invasion of privacy. I'm just looking for a little more information that shows this is indeed your sockmaster. Given there are a few more edits now, maybe you can look again to see if it matches something they have done before? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC) reply

12 February 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Pro forma, see below. GeneralNotability ( talk) 20:13, 12 February 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

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JoshuSasori/Archive&oldid=1089909329"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE