Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeeJermo/Archive

24 October 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

User:DeeJermo looked like a normal editor until yesterday. DeeJermo was fairly active on 23 October, 2012 having making a few edits on Wikipedia after a long gap of around 5 months after 26 May, 2012. At 23:10, October 23, 2012 (see ) user account User:Numbnuts265) is created. Numbnuts265's made it's first edit at 23:14, 23 October 2012 (see which was obviously and clearly a vandalism edit with the edit summary "Qorxulu musiqi qrupu", blanking the whole article page and just leaving a side template box. It is soon blocked and Numbnuts265 make's a totally unconvincing unblock appeal at 23:28, 23 October, 2012 (see ) which gets obviously gets declined. Very Interestingly User:DeeJermo makes a auto-unblock appeal at 23:49 and 23:56, October 23, 2012 (see and ), just 21 minutes after User:Numbnuts265 was blocked indefinitely for vandalism. DeeJermo also left an unusual note on their talk page (see ) which highly makes me suspect that both the accounts are operated by the same person. DeeJermo's claiming that her sister vandalized and he already knew about it sounds very fishy to me, after all My little sister did it applies here. Regarding the IP address, it was mentioned in the auto-unblock appeal made by DeeJermo, so checking that also would be worth a shot. I am quite sure that there is a 99% chance that these two accounts get "confirmed" or "likely" connected to each other technically. Therefore I request a CheckUser to do the necessary reviewing, as having clear evidence will help bring transparency to all users and also any sleeper Sockpuppet accounts can be found out if they exist. And when the investigation completes, the Admins know what to do then (which means that when accounts are matched to each other User:DeeJermo should be blocked indefinitely as they are responsible for any edits they do from any other accounts and IP address and therefore cannot simply get away like this) Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

I live in a house of six people. Apparently, and I swear, I am sick and tired of being called a liar, I am not being believed when I tell the truth: I do not have access to User:Numbnuts265, and nor do I want it. That is my sister. When she found out she was blocked, she giggled, because as a child, she obviously thought it was funny. When I found out I was blocked, I was outraged, and when I tried to appeal it, I got an email saying "Yeah, we've heard that before. Declined". Not a "look, I'm sorry, we can't do it because we don't have proof". I'll agree with the administrator on my talk page, I lost my cool, I had a go at my own talk page, but I know exactly what account I use, I know where I've used them - most notably on Crusoe Secondary College. I have nothing to do with 30 seconds for Mars or whatever my sister decided to dance around and delete. I will not sit here, and be called a liar.

P.S: I am female. DeeJermo (talk) 04:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - I have to decline. We already know they are the same IP, and DeeJermo already admitted as much in cite #4.  It isn't against policy for a brother and sister to have accounts here on the same IP, it is rather common actually.  The key to it being "socking" is "abuse", and I don't see it.  They didn't edit the same articles or talk pages.  Next we have the IP.  It might be them, I have no idea, but even if it is them, there isn't abuse.  The time differences between the edits of the same article are such that it wouldn't confuse someone, no avoiding of scrutiny is going on, so no abuse.  What we have here looks like excellent detective work, but no crime :)  The one account was already blocked for vandalism (a bit quick, I might add) and the given explanation is plausible, particularly since he didn't hide the fact that it was his "little sister".  Sometimes, it really is the little sister, so I would give the benefit of the doubt. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 20:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. I believe you are right Dennis, so this can be freely closed. TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)