Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jackthompson1885/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

WP:DUCK sock. Sockmaster, "Jack5160," was blocked for edit-warring on New Democrats by. A few minutes later, the sock, "Jack7170," appears trying to remove the same exact material from the article:. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 10:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Likely new sock : would it be possible to run a CU on  who is currently trying to remove the same exact material from the article an hour after you blocked the first sock:, ,. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2021 (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
CU-confirmed and blocked, not tagged. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, this is almost too stupid for words. I already blocked, and now I'll see what I can do. Drmies (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, that range is way too big. Maybe a smarter CU can go through and pick something out, but I'll just semi-protect the article to prevent this stupidity, and maybe they'll get tired and find a more productive hobby. Maybe they can try this. Drmies (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've increased the master's block to indef and tagged the accounts. At this point, semi-protection is the best option. Closing.

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( original case name)




 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Similar username (combination of Jack and numbers) and similar interest (US politics). talk page of rep. party, an article the sockmaster previously. Request CU to check for sleepers. NJD-DE (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Possible sleeper account found: . Although the account hasn't edited for a couple of weeks, it's first and only edit was to Ann Telnaes . The account attempted to remove the same exact material the master kept trying to remove, , . Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Another likely related account: . In addition to making an edit to the Republican Party, this account primarily edits articles concerning elections. Jack45678's most recent edits were to state Senate elections in North Carolina, Michigan, and Florida , , . Whereas some of Jack17212's most recent edits pertained to Senate elections, and local elections, in the State of Pennsylvania , . If unrelated to the master, then there's a high chance that Jack45678 is a sock of Jack17212. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Hmmm, yeah, Jack17212 looks likely to be the same person (and is the oldest account).  But let's see what CU finds. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , this is Jack17212. I can promise you that I am in no way related to these other folks and I fully expect any CU investigation to reveal that as such. I have roots in PA and like to edit PA articles just to keep things up to date. I'm pretty involved with Election Twitter (some of my edits I have featured on my twitter profile and have been shared, e.g. making original content results maps used on some pages, and the like). Looking through the page here it seems like this one person has had many sockpuppet accounts so I don't blame you for accusing me given the multiple similarities. Like it was pointed out, I am the oldest account, and my edits do span more than just U.S. politics, as I've also done some edits for PA geography/towns, etc.. But yeah, no clue who this guy is, and I'm sure the CU investigation will support that. Hopefully this goes quickly. -- Jack17212 20:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at the edits by the users listed on this page, I think the biggest qualitative difference I would point out is that I have a few extensive edits to some PA towns that featured well-cited sources (and took a lot of time! haha), as well as some interspersed edits to things like school districts, etc.. The other accounts seem purely focused on national senate races or pure trolling. -- Jack17212 20:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, one last thing: the reason I have the five numbers in my username is that they are the the numbers I used as my lunch code in elementary and middle school to buy lunch -- not that I expect this to exonerate me (though I 100% expect CU to do that), but at the very least I hope you find it mildly interesting to learn more details about this particular debacle.-- Jack17212 21:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Virtually certain that Jackthompson1885 is the master here, but I'd like CU to confirm that before I rename the case (and given the number of socks we've found so far, there might be more sleepers). -- RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The CU results are as follows.
 * Jack17212 is ❌.
 * Jackthompson1885 is ✅ to Jack5160—.
 * Jack45678 is to Jack5160—they're geographically somewhat close, but it looks like a different person from a technical standpoint. However, Jack45678 is ✅ to the following accounts:
 * Of these three, only Doug3584030 has edited, and to be honest, it doesn't seem like there's any WP:ILLEGIT socking among these accounts, so not sure if any action is needed.
 * I would move this case under Jackthompson1885 and retag the other confirmed socks in the archive. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Jooks like we hit the jackpot here. Case renamed, retagged all around.  I agree that the multiple accounts confirmed to  have not done anything WP:ILLEGIT, but pinging just to make sure they understand our rules about multiple accounts.  The gist is that as long as you continue to use only the Jack45678 account and not any of the others, you're fine.  If you have any questions, please ask. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Of these three, only Doug3584030 has edited, and to be honest, it doesn't seem like there's any WP:ILLEGIT socking among these accounts, so not sure if any action is needed.
 * I would move this case under Jackthompson1885 and retag the other confirmed socks in the archive. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Jooks like we hit the jackpot here. Case renamed, retagged all around.  I agree that the multiple accounts confirmed to  have not done anything WP:ILLEGIT, but pinging just to make sure they understand our rules about multiple accounts.  The gist is that as long as you continue to use only the Jack45678 account and not any of the others, you're fine.  If you have any questions, please ask. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)