Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jake Fuersturm/Archive

06 June 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''


 * 1. User:Jake Fuersturm is currently blocked after leaving a harassing message for me on my talk page. This encounter began off of an exchange on the Spock article's talk page.  Jake protested his block vehemently and then went silent on his talk page on June 4, 2011.
 * 2. On his user page history Jake describes himself as being a "wombat at a laptop."
 * 3. I posted a question to Spock on June 3, 2011 after Jake had been blocked. User:Chartered_Wombat's very first Wikipedia post ever was to respond to that question.  Chartered Wombat then moved into a discussion at River Song (Doctor Who)] in the very next post after mine.  My entry was on June 5, 2011
 * 4. As evidenced by this remark it is clear to me that Jake is following my edits and reading them. UPDATE: The following change was made prior to Jake's notification of the SPI filed against him. He is clearly still following my edits.
 * 5. Jake and Chartered Wombat's style of typing are virtually identical; specifically the use of dashes, the Canadian/English spelling, and the general pointed tone of the remarks--while quoting/including WP articles--both accounts have made are indistinguishable. Examples vs.  or .  Here is one example of the two accounts using an editor's history in a discussion  vs.
 * 6. Aside from Spock there is a Chartered Wombat/ Jake overlap at Talk:Harold_Camping. Aside from that the Chartered Wombat sock appears to have tried to stay out articles touched by Jake, but the account is very new.

In conclusion, the behavioral evidence is pretty overwhelming that Jake and Chartered Wombat are one in the same. A check user and/or an IP investigation (if that can be done) may be necessary. I am barred from leaving a notice on the Jake’s talk pages, so if the admin accepting this could do that it would be appreciated. Thank you. Erikeltic ( Talk ) 14:56, 6 June 2011 (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

 * Likely, but CU to confirm. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Very . Courcelles 05:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree after reviewing the behavioral evidence and with the CU boost, I've blocked the sock and upped the master's block to indefinite as well, because it was done to evade a block. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 05:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

09 June 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''


 * Editor Jake admits to being Jake Fuersturm.
 * Editor Jake is indefinitely blocked for sock puppeting during a block.
 * Editor Jake created this sock puppet apparently to only carry out his baseless accusations against myself and Mike Wazkowski.

Editor Jake is clearly not going to take his block well. Erikeltic ( Talk ) 11:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC) Erikeltic ( Talk ) 11:18, 9 June 2011 (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

 * Obvious sock is obvious. Already blocked and tagged. T. Canens (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

27 November 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

User:Djathinkimacowboy's account is less than a month old, but he is demonstrating an advanced knowledge of Wikipedia and several of its policies. I asked the editor to clarify whether he edited under any other accounts and he became unnecessarily belligerent. Given Djathinkimacowboy's over-the-top reaction to my question, his Wikipedia knowledge, the age of his account, his editing habits, his writing style, use of punctuation, and the level of inexplicable hostility he is showing me (including this personal attack), I am fairly certain he is yet another of Jake Fuersturm's socks. A comparison between their editing styles, articles, and IP addresses should reveal as much. It should be noted that Jake has a history of mutiple sock puppets and each of them (sooner or later) appears on the Spock article. Erikeltic ( Talk ) 15:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yet more evidence.  Cowboy seems to have an axe to grind with Mike Wozowski as well, which, strangely enough, is the exact other person that Jake had issues with as well.  How very coincidental.   Erikeltic  ( Talk ) 17:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

How coincidental that this user is setting up "coincidences" knowing I'll follow them. This is canvassing. I'll not respond to this fool any longer. You people do what you must. I'll keep editing properly. This is a deliberate waste of everyone's time. Djathink imacowboy  17:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Upon further inspection, here is some additional evidence. Jake's edit vs. Djathinkimacowboy's. In addition to the similarity between these edits, I wanted to use the accusation of me canvasing as an example/ more evidence. It's a charge that Jake Fuersturm made quite freely, despite the fact that Jake's canvasing was legendary. Here are Djathinkimacowboy's canvasing edits since I opened this SPI. A very quick look at Jake's history will show the same pattern of editing, attacking, canvasing, feigning innocence/ignorance, repeat process as needed. In fact, Djathinkimacowboy has left a message for associates of Jake--like this one Raintheone. Ostensibly Cowboy left this message because Raintheone knows "this Jake fellow" (his exact words) and Cowboy is looking for help in clearing his good name. (And the Oscar goes to....) Now I can't help but wonder why, out of all the editors that Cowboy could choose from that are well familiar with Jake, would Cowboy choose to drag Raintheone into the fray? Familiarity, perhaps? Jake used the same tactic in the past as well. I find it very odd that in all of the canvasing Cowboy has done (just like Jake himself and all of his other sock puppets) thus far Cowboy has stayed far, far away from going directly to Jake/himself. Erikeltic ( Talk ) 03:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Erikeltic's motives are clear: to paint an innocent user with the 'brush of his enemy' from some time ago. I have little to add except to call to your attention Erikeltic's operatic language: "And the Oscar goes to..."; " can't help but wonder why, out of all the editors that Cowboy could choose from that are well familiar with Jake, would Cowboy choose to drag Raintheone into the fray?"

And of course, Erikeltic knows very well that I would naturally research this Jake user's history. I found User:Raintheone to be ideal to approach earlier. That user seemed to know this Jake intimately. So Erikeltic is the one feigning ignorance here. He says: "Jake used the same tactic in the past as well." What tactic was that? Asking friends for support, which I did NOT do because I am not Jake? Then he expresses surprise that I do not go to Jake himself. Why would I do that when this Jake is blocked and that is all I know?

Honestly, I cannot tell if this is sheer stupidity or some other motive is presenting itself. Erikeltic is seeing parallels, fine. He pushed me quite knowingly to insult him, fine. But now, he is once again simply posting falsehoods here. My trust lies in the better judgment of any admin who takes this case. Djathink imacowboy  05:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Now, asking forgiveness for so many posts, I am retiring from this nonsense. Once again I reiterate the trust I have in the admins. Djathink  imacowboy  10:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

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

This is a pathetic and mean-spirited accusation, baseless and malicious. This user User:Erikeltic threatened, harassed and accused me before we went any further in the issue.

I suspect he has latched onto an old IP of someone's - he now believes it is I. I am no sock puppet of anybody's. I resent this action being taken simply because he disagreed with an edit I made at Spock.

I also desire his vandalisation of my talk page to be considered. You may see it here and review the page history. Djathink imacowboy  16:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Here are the relevant edits. Jake/Cowboy was asked to clarify his account status, he became belligerent and even called me a "bastard", but refused to clarify his account status. The suggestion that I would open an SPI angered him. I opened the SPI based on all of the reasons I listed. Suddenly Jake/Cowboy had no idea what an SPI was. The bulleted edits on his talk page read almost exactly like those on Jake's.  Erikeltic  ( Talk ) 16:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, after threats, accusations, lies and vandalism (for which he's been reported). All because I "remind" him of this Jake editor? Based on bulleted sentences?? Erikeltic is out of order. Djathink  imacowboy  16:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The behaviour of this editor looks like a sockpuppet to me. Should be blocked. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Shall this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive523#Erikeltic_and_Marfoir be considered before a decision is handed down? I would draw your attention to the remarks of User:Jayron32 here. Thank you. This will all serve for the issue I plan to bring to ANI if I have time. It will be noted from my evidence that User:Cameron Scott certainly has no place in this issue here. Djathink imacowboy  09:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The section heading is "comments by other users" - I am an other user - your edits, your behaviour and the evidence presented above convince me you are a sock. Please do not post on my page again - any interaction should occur here or on the relevant Administrator boards. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, another user with a mere opinion. Present what evidence you have. You are bound by the same standards as the rest of us in this matter. And your past is no proud thing. Djathink  imacowboy  09:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * And your past is no proud thing. Odd comment from someone who I've never interacted with before and who's account only starts on the 4th November.  --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive523#Erikeltic_and_Marfoir requires only reading, no interaction. And so, why, pray, did you come to interact here? Eh? And is there some point aside from childishness that compels you to keep repeating ad nauseam the date my account started? Djathink imacowboy  11:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have mentioned the date of your account creation once - here, so the rest of your statement is a falsehood. As for your link to a contribution of mine that is almost three years old - I'm not sure what that's is suppose to mean - either to me or this discussion. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's classic WP:NOTTHEM and classic Jake Fuersturm, as can be seen in this edit . Bwilkins accurately described Jake's WP:NOTTHEM approach best here .  Erikeltic  ( Talk ) 12:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It is unusual for a month old account to state "I have been aware for many years that Wikipedia likes to do things wrongly"[] Gerardw (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. It's worth noting that since I opened this SPI, the Cowboy account seems to simply have no idea what an SPI investigation is and yet, about 30 minutes before that the suggestion of an SPI enraged him.  In these edits  Cowboy/Jake seems to be setting himself up for having the same/similar IP addresses.   <B>Erikeltic</B>  ( Talk ) 16:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What enrages me is this treatment by a malicious editor. Djathink  imacowboy  16:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am an old-hand at editing to a limited degree of skill. It used to be a hobby I liked. I stayed as an IP for years - precisely because of this type of thing. Now User:Erikeltic is completely out of line, badgering me and vandalizing my talk page with phony sock puppet tags. This is exactly why I was reluctant to ever sign up - everyone kept pestering me to do it, get a username. I was safer and had less hassle editing when I was a rotating IP. There is no way anyone on this planet will ever see my real IP. And I take the proper advice I am given, always. Your investigation causes me no worry and no fear. Just keep it fair. Djathink  imacowboy  16:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, tell us more about this "rotating-IP" that masks your "real IP".  <B>Erikeltic</B>  ( Talk ) 16:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It "masks" nothing. Many people have it for security. You don't like it you take it up with my provider. And I'd appreciate it if you at least pretended to care about my reporting your repeated vandalism at my talk page, the latest episode being only minutes ago. Djathink imacowboy  17:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait -- so is that why you and Jake have IPs from the same area?  <B>Erikeltic</B>  ( Talk ) 17:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Now Erikeltic is canvassing. He has gotten at least one editor to begin an edit war with me. This is low. And no, I do not know why this Jake and I "have IPs from the same area". I do not know Jake, but I know a canvassing trouble-maker when I see one, and I see one in User:Erikeltic. So how do we know he is not this "Jake"? Djathink imacowboy  17:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No proof of canvasing. Please back serious accusations like this with proof.
 * Also, edit wars require two editors. at Wikiquette assistance, where you make the same accusations, your actions have not been proven. Please stop wikihounding. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look at this  Jake recently logged in just to threaten me. Please take another look at the check user request. <B>Erikeltic</B> ( Talk ) 00:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll second that motion, if only to get a definite answer. MikeWazowski (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
. All the previous accounts are. This will have to be considered on behavioural evidence alone. WilliamH (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've checked this per the recent diff. It is not conclusive to investigate with CheckUser - the two accounts are technically ❌. WilliamH (talk) 09:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have looked in and out and through the crevats of this investigation, all socks, and the master. There is no evidence in my opinion that links the the two users in question. Evidence in both users contributions actually make a clear indication at one point that these users are not the same. Editors are reminded to Assume good faith and that similar edits is not conclusive by itself. --  DQ  (t)   (e)  09:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)