Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jackadvisor/Archive

29 February 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The oldest of these accounts seems to be the Jackadvisor account. It came to my attention when the Jonathansterling account (which seems to be second-oldest) nominated the Eugene Plotkin article for deletion. In that discussion, another user had already noted that many of the accounts advocating for deletion were single-purpose; I did some research and found that all of the above usernames had never edited any page other than three: Eugene Plotkin, Talk:Eugene Plotkin, and Articles_for_deletion/Eugene_Plotkin. All of their edits or arguments were similar in opinion, wording, and rationale, but with just enough variation that I would have refrained out of good faith from accusing them of sockpuppetry, if the single-purpose tag had not been applied; that tag caught my attention enough to do the above research. Most of the accounts seem to be used to present a false consensus by !voting on the AfD. I did not find it necessary to provide too many diffs: other than this one, all relevant evidence can be found in the sock accounts' lists of contributions, above. It seems obvious from this evidence that the accounts are either sockpuppets or meatpuppets, and am requesting that a CheckUser compare IPs in order to determine which. Thank you. - Jorgath (talk) 05:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Other editors are also accusing (on the Afd talk page) the account of Janusjane:
 * Could that please be compared as well? - Jorgath (talk) 06:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note, I already commented on that account below. Tiptoety  talk 07:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, my apologies, and thank you. Am quite tired at this point. - Jorgath (talk) 07:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, my apologies, and thank you. Am quite tired at this point. - Jorgath (talk) 07:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

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




Tiptoety talk 06:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not willing to differentiate between meat and sock here. Farm blocked and tagged, master indef'd. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  18:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * AfD marked speedy keep per this. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  18:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

05 June 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

In early 2012, the article Eugene Plotkin was gutted and then nominated for deletion 9 or more sockpuppets were identified at Sockpuppet investigations/Jackadvisor/Archive and the article then speedily kept.

at Eugene Plotkin, User:Factchecker25’s 1st edit, inserting a statement that Plotkin did not actually plead guilty, only that he was accused of the crime. This follows the pattern of earlier sockpuppets to minimize Plotkins responsibility for the crime. In point of fact, Plotkin did plead guilty, was found guilty, and served a prison sentence (until about late 2011). This is supported by the announcement of the prosecutor and by multiple reliable sources.

Also note that IP 108.41.245.8 reverted the revert of this edit by Smallbones

A bit before this an OTRS request was apparently filed apparently making the same claim that Plotkin really didn’t plead guilty. After investigating that claim the OTRS volunteer quietly disappeared, without finally making any changes. See Talk:Eugene_Plotkin - from which I have my sole knowledge of this part of this mess.

Diffs attacking Smallbones using similar arguments in a similar writing style.

by sock User:Onemakestwo in old AfD

by sock User: Tomtrinity in old AfD

by sock User:Jackadvisor at Talk:Eugene Plotkin

by User:Factchecker25 at Talk:Eugene Plotkin

[] (2nd part) by User:Negashek at Talk:Eugene Plotkin

[] by User:Factchecker25 at Talk:Eugene Plotkin

Similar edits by Factchecker25, User:Jaytwist, and User:Negashek in current RfC at Talk:Eugene Plotkin - looks like vote stacking

 by User:Factchecker25 at Talk:Eugene Plotkin

by User:Negashek (his 7th edit, which included one earlier deletion of material from Eugene Plotkin

by User:Jaytwist (who had been editing for 1 week, his first talk page edit) on Talk:Eugene Plotkin

FWIW possible WP:Acting job by User: GoodeOldeboy. Position matching Factchecker25’s, story that seems to good to be true (e.g. picture of Richard Petty) Smallbones( smalltalk ) 18:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

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

If you take a look at the Talk Page for the article Eugene Plotkin, you will notice that user Smallbones has reverted legitimate edits and fought against an emerging consensus view for a page move. Each time an editor has disagreed with Smallbones, he has accused that editor of being a sock puppet. I welcome the investigation and can assure the community that, to the best of my knowledge, nobody else is using my account or my IP. Jaytwist (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I see that you've never edited on any page in common with User:GoodeOldeboy, except at Talk:Eugene Plotkin. Can you explain how you found a low key notice on his talk page  to find your way here?  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 17:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I found my way here because I received a Wikipedia notification stating: "Smallbones mentioned you on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jackadvisor." Jaytwist (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Bizarre! Can you do that without having e-mail enabled? It's not on your talk page.  Who sent it?  I'd love to hear the details.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 18:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What is bizarre to me is your behavior. You have to be more open-minded when the consensus view disagrees with your personal view. Nonetheless, I will answer your question. Wikipedia notifications appear next to your username in the top bar. When you receive a notification, the number changes from zero to however many notifications you have and goes from a gray background to a red background. My guess is that this particular notification was automatically generated by a bot. Jaytwist (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I got an automated message about this referral to a sockpuppet investigation. I would like to state for the record that since I have created my username, I have not used any other account, nor had any other user using my account. I also believe that user Smallbones has a COI with regard to this article and has not acted in good faith. He has pointedly ignored numerous sources contradicting his edits and reverted my good faith edits, including this one, where he removed 30% of the article. He has also taken to calling out every editor who expressed a different view on the Eugene Plotkin talk page as a sockpuppet. I have previously referred Smallbones to ANI. This is more of the same from him. I know this is not a place for a content dispute, so suffice it to say that a careful review of the Eugene Plotkin talk page tells the whole story. Factchecker25 (talk) 03:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Factchecker25's diff is clearly flawed as far as what he claims to illustrate. His ANI complaint at Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive795 resulted in no action, though I did give a very complete response to his accusation of COI (my last edit there). The accusation here is just another personal attack, consistent with the earlier sockpuppets which also focused on my supposed COI. To the extent that anybody can prove not having a COI on a particular matter, I can prove that I don't have a COI. Just have an admin contact me via the e-mail link on my user page.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 12:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * My diff expanded the article and added sources. What are these "clear flaws"? If they existed, the talk page would have been the right place to discuss them. If you read other editors' comments at the ANI link that user Smallbones provides above and on the article's talk page, you will see how user Smallbones has waged a one-man campaign to preserve an article that is really about a crime involving a group of people, in the form of a BLP that focuses on one participant at the expense of all others. There is a clear consensus from every editor except user Smallbones that the article should be moved and generalized to discuss the crime and that it should not be in the form of a BLP. Sources have been provided, policy cited, and views clearly expressed. Through all this, user Smallbones has ranted, made accusations, edit warred, removed material, and generally tried to manipulate the situation. He is continuing to do that here. Factchecker25 (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I received a notification about this page. What is this about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunnery Sgt. Jethro Gibbs (talk • contribs) 00:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * All listed users are ❌ to each other, but I am in the process of investigating another aspect of this. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  16:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Any update, DQ?? Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  10:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm still unsure about any final connections to one of the users on this list, but I will take it off wiki and allow for this investigation to close. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  14:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Closing. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  16:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)