Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Frostie Jack

''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it .''

Frostie Jack

 * - indefed for trolling


 * Code letter: G


 * Supporting evidence: A couple of disruptive users, with low edit counts, have appeared in an obscure place doing the same sort of disruptive things:

Looking at the contribution history of Lord Charles, it is apparently a sleeper account, therefore, we should check for others. Jehochman Talk 13:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just in case another CU is reviewing this, I made a similar request last night. Please contact User:Lar for results if required. Risker (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have results. CUs can contact me. I ✅ this connection. There is more here going on so please don't close yet. ++Lar: t/c 14:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocked and tagged. Tiptoety  talk 18:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the block log, is also a sockpuppet of interest in this matter.  MBisanz  talk 00:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also  MBisanz  talk 00:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ both of the above - A l is o n  ❤ 01:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

&larr; - let's leave this open for the moment. I'm not quite done yet - A l is o n  ❤ 01:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ugh. Looking over the contributions of the confirmed accounts, and looking at some page histories, brings to my mind Requests for arbitration/Alkivar (and the related/sub case Requests for arbitration/Eyrian).  That case involved multiple sockpuppeteers including parties, other puppeteers that parties were suspected of being but ArbComm found they were somebody different, an evidence presenter blocked for being a sockpuppet, et cetera.  Several had checkusers run around that time.  If any of those runs were saved by the folks that ran them, there may be useful comparison data in them. The gap in Lord Charles activity is contemporaneous with that case opening and some of the associated blocking.  Clarity was never fully achieved - or at least not fully disclosed - as to who was who in that case.  GRBerry 15:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As someone who knows both of those cases quite well, I don't see much resemblance. The Alkivar case was a conspiracy whose most active participant was a prolific sockpuppeteer who had already been sitebanned, aided by a couple of other people including an administrator who repeatedly misused the tools at the banned editor's request.  Eyrian was an administrator who ran a disruptive sockpuppet and who collaborated with at least one long term sockpuppeteer.  An element of conspiracy existed in both those cases and I see no reason to suppose that any of those individuals had a hand in this.  Durova Charge! 11:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing the connection between these cases either. ++Lar: t/c 01:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

After some investigation by various CUs the following additional socks, all already blocked and tagged are ✅ as related to Frostie Jack who has been tagged as the sockmaster, but this tagging is purely for convenience. We decline to name a suspected master account at this time. Thanks, Risker for tagging these and for your assistance in general. ++Lar: t/c 01:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, what a load of dirty socks. Is this master account a "name" around this place? Jehochman Talk 01:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not really a good question to ask. ++Lar: t/c 01:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why I asked. You've answered it for me already.  I won't push further. Thank you for the very considerable work this may have required. Jehochman Talk 02:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Bloody hell, that's a department store of hosiery! I assume someone's had the good manners to let Giano know who the suspect is, even if for good reason the community at large can't know? --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that would be inappropriate, actually, and I hope all the parties to the investigation have the discretion not to do so. Let's kill the speculation please. ++Lar: t/c 01:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

All are blocked and tagged. Let's call this -  A l is o n  ❤ 06:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is indeed completed... however it may be appropriate to clarify this a bit since there has been some discussion. In researching this, you, I, and Sam looked into this pretty extensively. You and I and Sam know the following to be true: There is at least one 'good user' on the same IP range. However, the IPs do not overlap, and therefore the checkusers are not convinced enough to expose this person, and perhaps irreparably damaging their reputation for innocently sharing the same large ISP  with a troublemaker.  If the user sees this message and the harassment stops, that is a good outcome.  If it is the user we have noted and he does not stop, he may eventually leave us enough evidence to take definitive action. I hope that helps clarify things for everyone who has concerns in this area. ++Lar: t/c 15:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked into the case specifically because the comments here and on Giano's talk page gave me the impression that something was being hidden. I agree here that there is insufficient confirmation to name someone who happens to be on the same ISP, There are no other users of note on the relevant IP range, and mere geography is not enough to indict another user based only on suspicion.  I regret the false impression left in the minds of some by the previous attempts to explain the situation. Thatcher 15:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC) Corrected. Thatcher 17:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, a clarification on the clarification. Turns out that the person who has the most knowledge of the matter had not seen the above paragraph (which I proposed in an email discussion) before Lar posted it.  There are no other editors of note on Frostie Jack's IP range(s).  Frostie Jack et al is in a similar geographic location to any number of people whom Giano has interacted with, but that is all the evidence shows.  (Frankly, I would have said as much from the beginning, but c'est la vie.)  Sorry for the confusion and misunderstandings. Thatcher 15:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it. Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.''