Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jackal4/Archive

Report date March 14 2009, 03:49 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * Evidence submitted by Planecrash111 (talk)

Both JustSomeRandomGuy32 and Jackal4 have the same editing patterns. Jackal4 and RandomGuy both appear to be big baseball fans, edit war consistently, remove and blank content from multiple pages and have used the edit summaries to personally attack other users. RandomGuy consistently removes the suspected sockpuppet notices from his pages. I believe he is trying to evade the case. RandomGuy stated yesterday that he was leaving Wikipedia, but after Jackal4 was banned for a month, then he came back. I believe he is trying to evade the block by using his other username. Randomguy was blocked one time for 24 hours for edit warring. Jackal4 has been banned twice for the same reason. Randomguy and Jackal both use foul language while interacting with other users within the site, including me. Calling names such as "moron, idiot, put the s word on my profile. Jackal4, as RandomGuy has done, removes content without explaining why and drops F-bombs in the edit summary as he did to Tommy Watkins. I hope that both users will be disciplined for their actions, whether they are sockpuppets, or not. They both have violated Wikipedia Policy consistently.(Planecrash111 (talk) 03:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)) I have tried to continue since Randomguy has been harassing me, but he keeps blanking pages, making personal attacks, and edit warring. Yes in a way RandomGuy is correct. This shouldn't have gotten to where its been, but he didn't stop his disruptive behavior.(Planecrash111 (talk) 04:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)) I didn't full out attack Randomguy. This is simply false. Randomguy attacked me over making a mistake on Randy Johnson about a year back and that is when the personal attacks started happening, but only about 3 days ago and it has piled on since then.(Planecrash111 (talk) 04:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC))


 * Evidence submitted by Epeefleche (talk)

Jackal4 was blocked for the first time on March 5th, having been reported by BaseballBugs (see . Jackal4, incidentally, followed that up by communicating to me as follows, for my agreeing with BaseballBugs on Jackal4's talk page: "Fuck you."  See   Jackal4 was blocked as a result of the BaseballBugs report.  See   Two days later, Racingstripes was created.  His second contribution after he was created was a direct attack on BaseballBugs.  See   He was warned about that, and his response included the following "... This user [Baseball Bugs] is the first to complain about other peoples' usernames, and I think that he himself violates the policy," suggesting that he has had experience w/Baseball Bugs -- even though that was only his 4th comment ever. In addition, his style and type of edits, language in his comments, articles edited, frequency of editing, etc. all point to him being the same person as Jackal4, who of course has now been blocked for a month.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Passedflatus seems to be the same editor as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I'll keep it short. This is not true. Planecrash111 has been full out attacking me over something small and stupid I shouldn't have said on his talk page. I've tried to move on, but he continues. A simple history check will end this. If I need a temporary ban to be punished for that initial comment, so be it. This really should not have gotten to where it is. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 04:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

IMO, this is a ridiculous claim. These are two editors that have been around for a long time; one has been around since 2006, the other since 2007. Planecrash111 has been on both users' case (sample edit), and should probably be warned or blocked for harassment.
 * Comments by other users

(@ above) - can we have diffs of these "blanked pages" and "personal attacks"? And how many people hold grudges for "about a year"? — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  05:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * EDIT: I see that Planecrash was blocked. My apologies for not checking first. I have also found the "blanking pages", which was when Random blanked/tagged with db-attack his suspected sockpuppet categories, which seems like a reasonable thing to do if you are totally frustrated because of how you have been hounded for days and know that you aren't a sockpuppet. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  05:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no idea as to whether there is a sockpuppet issue, but as JustSomeRandomGuy32 says, a check should show whether he is also Jackal4. I will say, however, that Jackal4 has been out-of-control disruptive for some months now.  His current 30-day-ban was richly deserved.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, can someone check this ... concurrent with his first block, a new user has appeared who appears to be a possible Jackal4 sockpuppet -- namely Racingstripes ... see. Can someone check that user to determine if he is in fact Jackal4?  Thanks.

Requested by Planecrash111 (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

❌, except for and, which  acknowledged in his very first edit:. This edit explains his history with as well. Mackensen (talk) 11:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No further action necessary; checkuser proved accounts to be unrelated, except for two which have been previous blocked due to username violations. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  04:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)