Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JasonD26/Archive

13 September 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Ktrainentertainment was blocked after creating the article Ketsia as a spam account by OrangeMike. Very soon after, the two suspect accounts arrived to remove speedy delete notices and maintenance tags. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:09, 13 September 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

 * - The master was blocked for spamming, but it's likely that these others are theirs. Endorsing to confirm. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ as each other:




 * I can't draw technical connections from that grouping to Ktrainentertainment other than at a level that could be coincidence, or could not be. You'll have to decide that on behaviour. Courcelles 04:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * CU results look about right -- DQ  (t)   (e)  12:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

17 September 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Both users edited the Ketsia article and talkpage within minutes of registering to Wikipedia. Both of them contests the deletion of the article and/or removing maintenance templates. E Wing (talk) 06:42, 17 September 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

 * The master account has been renamed, so archives and this case have been moved to reflect that. Based on the fact that these accounts edited before the master account was unblocked and agreed to not edit the subject anymore, and to the results of the check user from the last case, on a behavioural level, I am leaning towards these not being a sock puppet of the main account. I also note that the editing style and use of edit summaries is quite different forHpotterJiggles compared to JessT9090 though this may be a coincidence. If these are socks, I'm not smelling them. This one is another clerk for a second opinion.  Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  09:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * . AGK  [&bull; ] 17:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * . Blocked and tagged. AGK  [&bull; ] 17:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have this one to request clarification. Without giving too much away, what draw you to the  conclusion because the sense I got that they were maybe work colleagues or something working together, or for the Ketsia artist, but of course I am not certain. I'm also not too sure about the master being blocked, mainly because when the master account was unblocked after being blocked for being a promotional name, they agreed not to edit the Ketsia article. Whether this means they abandoned the other accounts (if they were the owner) or directed the holders of the other accounts to not editing, I dunno if a block for something that they've done prior to being blocked originally is the right course of action. Could another CU take a look and give an opinion here, as based on what I saw (from a behaviour point of view anyways) JessT9090 appears to me to be a different person, Hpotter not as much so but still different to the master account. I might be wrong, but my spidey sense here tells me something is not quite right in this picture.  Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  21:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Light meat puppetry? —  Kudu ~I/O~ 22:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Re-checked: ✅ that HpotterJiggles = JessT9090. Technically that these are JasonD26 (née Ktrainentertainment), but, as it was not clear what I meant: I went on to block on tag because, behaviourally, there is a tenable meatpuppetry link. Clerk Request Do I re-mark this as "checked", or leave it for another CU to confirm?  AGK  [&bull; ] 22:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's, it shouldn't be marked as checked. It may be blocked on behavioural grounds (in this case, meat puppetry). —  Kudu ~I/O~ 22:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * we're past this stage now, but for future reference, it would have been fine to have marked it as checked, unless you had wanted a second opinion, in which case you could just have left it as "relist". Kudu: cases are marked as checked once CU is run regardless of the result of that run. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 16:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ Technical-wise, HpotterJiggles = 0JessT909, straight match. I would actually say when compared against JasonD26. - Mailer Diablo 23:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * For behaviour-wise, HpotterJiggles doesn't look like 0JessT909. But HpotterJiggles sounds like JasonD26. - Mailer Diablo 23:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * While there's the potential that these may belong to Jason, it was more their commitment made yesterday to not edit articles related to the subject anymore. Call it an enormous extension of AGF, but I don't think it'd be a major issue if Jason is warned and unblocked, and the socks are kept blocked. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  23:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Can't be third time lucky. - Mailer Diablo 23:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Unblocking at this point would make me a little uncomfortable. —  Kudu ~I/O~ 23:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Already ✅ by AGK . Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  23:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Both socks are blocked, and this whole thing seems to be taken care of. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 12:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)