Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jay Starz/Archive

23 August 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NBA 2K (history). wrote: "I must add that I believe User:NBA 2K (history) is a sockpuppet of User:Jay Starz. This userpage/account was created after the same article created by User:Jay Starz was deleted. Jay Starz also deleted the notification placed on User talk:NBA 2K (history). Even if you are not the same person, this page still violates WP:USERPAGE and should therefore be deleted.— Chris! c / t 02:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)" The deleted article referenced above is NBA 2K (history) (see Jay Starz's talk page removal of the speedy deletion notification and Articles for deletion/NBA 2K (history)). See also their similar posts: "Why should my user page be deleted? You and him have been the ones editing all the time. Please stop editing it both of you. Jimmy Norris (UTC) Why would i get blocked, if i didnt create the page? The one i previously created was userfied by someone, who basically copied what i had writen, so i just edited/updated it. User:Jay Starz (UTC)"Please run a checkuser to see if there are any sleeper accounts created to circumvent the deletion of NBA 2K (history). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Cunard (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Ok, heres the REAL truth. My name is Jay James, and a couple of weeks ago I created an article, wich was proposed to be deleted by someone who's name I will not mention, wich he has also been watching my work under a microscope, editing and undoing everything I do. The page was later deleted. I saw a section in one of the deletion messages that said that I could "userfy" the page by asking a admin. I asked several, but with no succes. I'm a college student, majoring in bussiness, so I stay on dorms, so I have a roomate, my best friend Jimmy. Jimmy saw how upset i was, so he userfied the page himself, as he's like a brother to me. We both use the same laptop, so that might seem suspicious, but it's not. I have not lied when I have said that I didn't create the userpage, but I have been editing/updating it regulary. I don't expect any of you to believe me, but I really am telling the truth. I'm not "sockpuppeting" or anything like that, just a good friend helping me out. User:Jay Starz (UTC)
 * I think he is referring to me. I want to clarify that I didn't nominate NBA 2K (history) for deletion. User:MuZemike was the one who did. I crossed path with him when he edited many NBA players' biographies. Some edits are not consistent to the long established consensus on WP:NBA, so I reverted and encouraged him to discuss. But he did not. I just want to say I never followed him and harassed him in any way. Also your story is just hard to believe.— Chris! c / t 20:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about you Chris, and it may be hard to believe, but it's the truth. User:Jay Starz —Preceding undated comment added 20:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I also wanted to apologize for the misunderstanding, I'll be more safe from now on. User:Jay Starz (UTC)


 * Comment: Sock puppetry states: "If two or more registered editors use the same computer or network connection, their accounts may be linked by a CheckUser. Editors in this position are advised to declare such connections on their user pages to avoid accusations of sockpuppetry. There are userboxes available for this; see User shared IP address and User shared IP address private. Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives. When editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute, closely related accounts should disclose the connection and observe relevant policies such as edit warring as if they were a single account. If they do not wish to disclose the connection, they should avoid editing in the same areas, particularly on controversial topics." While I have significant doubts about the veracity of 's statements, I will accept 's recommendation below: "The users in question are aware of the socking policy by now; let's formally give a notice about it". Would Frank or the closing admin formally give notice to these two users regarding Sock puppetry since the two accounts seem to "edit with the same objectives"? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have added template:uw-agf-sock to both user talk pages. (Note that while the quoted policies above are correct, my reason for decline didn't take them into account because I don't see abuse. I think this is a WP:DUCK case but I just don't see abuse at this point. If there is abuse, or some crops up in the future, it will be simple enough to deal with.) Frank  &#124;  talk  15:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I see abuse in the users' common objective in their contributions of removing notices from other users at NBA 2K (history), as well as the common theme in their activity at the deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NBA 2K (history). Checkuser has no added benefit as Jay Starz has admitted above that a common computer was being used by both users, who are friends. Blocks are meant to be preventative and not punitive.  As there doesn't seem to be continuation of the socking behavior, the warning could be considered sufficient at this point.  Any further socking should result in blocks.—Bagumba (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I am declining this because sockpuppet investigations are supposed to be about abusive use of multiple accounts. It's not clear to me that if it turned out these two accounts were operated from the same laptop in the same dorm room that it would be abuse and that we could say with relative certainty that it would be the same person operating both accounts. The story given above seems to fit the known facts that any admin can see, so I don't find running a CU to be of any use. If two users are later found to be tag-teaming in some way, that's a different story but still not automatically socking.

If I've missed something, let me know, but I just don't see that this will help in any way. The users in question are aware of the socking policy by now; let's formally give a notice about it and all go about our editing to improve the encyclopedia and encourage (and help!) them to do the same. Frank &#124;  talk  05:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Marking for closure, per Frank. AGK  [•] 13:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)