Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jaredryandloneria: Difference between revisions

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jaredryandloneria/Archive.

This SPI case may involve cross-wiki abuse. Please consider reporting the results on Meta; checkusers can send an email to the interwiki checkuser mailing list if required.

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.

Based on the username and precocious editing activity, as well as being created after the previous sock was blocked Athanelar (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

This could actually be a sock of User:Joker is cool/User:Coded message of truth because the latter had a focus on pedophile conspiracies and had edited the Brookside Youth Centre article. The suspect account here is editing on that same article and has an Epstein files userbox as well as a ‘why so serious’ userbox. Athanelar (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Should the talk page/block log messages for Its a new trap be updated to the correct sockmaster? Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 22:13, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They were confirmed to Coded message of truth, who was blocked as a sock of Joker is cool, so it is correct for them to be listed as a sock of Joker is cool. Athanelar (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I mistakenly reported them here first because Jaredryandloneria has been prolific as of late and I didn’t spot the similarities to CMOT originally. Athanelar (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

– A checkuser has completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.

All the usual tells, almost every edit matches previous behaviour:

1. Misspelling of “soruces” (TA-5, sock).
2. Asking for advice at AFC re. drafts (TA-5, sock). This draft is frequented by socks.
3. Revisiting another previous draft (TA-5, sock 1, sock 2). Note the attempt to delete one of their earlier drafts under G5, something they’ve tried before: sock.
4. Goes straight back to their favourite Nathan Schauf draft: TA-5.
5. Including ~2026-57109-8 in view of this edit: TA-8, which matches points 1 & 3. Note that TA-5 confirms they’re TA-8 in their very first edit: TA-5

Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Add User:Movelone in view of:

1. DYK nomination of Radford Sechrist here
2. Tagalog-related edits [1]. Jared edited the Tagalog Wikipedia and confirmed they’re from the Philippines (see this last post).
3. Previous socks have also shown a penchant for changing the class/importance of articles – compare the last diff to those in point 5 above.

#Also note AI-generated article in sandbox [2], AI was used by sock Coded to generate drafts in the past [3].

I realise CU can’t link TA’s, but should we perhaps check for other named accounts in view of the recently discovered Coded/Joker accounts? Apologies if it’s been done already/this is redundant, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s another account hiding somewhere… Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FYI @Blue-Sonnet to my knowledge, Coded message of truth is not a Jaredryandloneria sock. They were banned as a sock of separate sockmaster User:Joker is cool Athanelar (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes a lot more sense – they didn’t match Jared’s behaviour so I was wondering why they were on here & obviously misunderstood the format of this page… I’ll strike the parts of my report that involve them, thank you! Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Izno! Does this mean the TA’s are unrelated? A TAIV user mentioned they’re on the same range as previous Jared TA’s & it does look like them.

I wanted to ask so I’ve got a better idea of what to look for re. future behaviour, since they’ve probably moved to a new TA by now. Blue Sonnet (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Named is likely to this SPI. Blocked. Izno (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I can’t disclose whether a TA is related technically. CUs can analyze and decide to action cases based entirely on behavior like any other patrolling admin, but many will not on a case where they have commented/actioned something as a checkuser because they may be biased toward/away from a conclusion based on the technical knowledge they ascertained as a CU. (I tend away from it unless I’ve been away from the case for a day or two, as an example.) Izno (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

– This SPI case is open.

WP:DUCK-Precocious editing, edited Draft:Sambucha early in the account’s lifespan (previously visited by other socks of the same sockmaster), similar level of English proficiency Athanelar (talk) 12:13, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is Jared, note how they’re closing AFD’s already despite being a “new” editor: sock TA Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TA account is could be different person with experience in Wikipedia ~2026-58144-6 (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That’s why an admin is going to examine your account.

If you’re Jared, all your edits will probably be undone just like they have been on previous sockpuppets and will happen again on future sockpuppets.

Jared is banned from editing Wikipedia completely and really needs to stop evading their block.

How did you find this page by the way? How did you know about this sockpuppetry report if you’re a different editor? Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(I think they get pinged by their username being mentioned in the report) Athanelar (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I didn’t think pings worked without the @ symbol or wiki formatting, so it looks like one learned something new today! I’ve asked Jared before and they didn’t mention pings.

There’s further recent behaviour that matches Jared but I don’t want to overload this report due to beans, admins please let me know if you need further behavioural evidence. Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The TA account is behaving suspiciously. They have been asking for feedback on draft articles and requesting Speedy Deletions, which mirrors the behavior of previous sockpuppet accounts.

TA

Previous sock ~2026-79269-6 (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, this sockpuppet previously edited Draft:Sambucha, which has since been deleted. ~2026-79269-6 (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We also have entirely AI-generated drafts at Draft:Rough Draft Atlanta which Jared has done before – evidenced by warnings on their Talk page here and here. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

yeah ai slop ~2026-79269-6 (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Athanelar, @Blue-Sonnet, editors don’t get pinged for being added to SPIs. — asilvering (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for confirming! Blue Sonnet (talk) 11:47, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]