Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jayemd/Archive

13 August 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This looks like a rather curious case; Jayemd, a young editor, has been a bit of an "attention seeker" in the past, self-awarding barnstars and modifiying cautions and warnings into compliments. After a trip to AN/I it appeared that he would be accepting mentorship and that was that. But tonight this turns up...

is made, and promptly vandalises the Call of Duty 2 article. Jayemd awkwardly reverts. MWD then harasses Jayemd...and then promptly makes this comment. Which makes it look very much like 'good hand-bad hand' socking to self-revert vandalism, as it were. Jayemd's reply here is curious as well - why is he so certain it's a sock? MWD closes out with this, which one wonders why he'd single out me out of all the editors Jayemd has had contact with... Note also that MWD's writing style is quite similar to Jayemd's.

All in all, this smells of sock rather strongly, and I'd like to request a CU to clear things up one way or the other. The Bushranger One ping only 02:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Note: Modern Warfare Dude got worse, drawing a block for one week originally which I've extended to indef as an obvious VOA. Still requesting CU per the above. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I was actually in the process of submitting my own form for investigation when I noticed this one. The bit of evidence that I'd like to add is that if you compare the three edits on User talk:Jayemd—Modern Warfare Dude's original gloating message at 20:54, the reply from the wrong account, Modern Warfare Dude instead of Jayemd, at 20:57, and Jayemd's eventual "real" reply at 21:01—you'll notice similarities in language and use of exclamation points. I also find it odd that Jayemd reverted vandalism on Call of Duty 2: Big Red One in only 2 minutes—20:37 to 20:39—which is conveniently quick, considering that he'd never edited the article previously and his contribution history doesn't show any other evidence of patrolling. Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, he just mentioned at WP:ANI that they're on the same IP. I don't think he understands how IPs work. Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I too was investigating the case when i saw this post on WP:ANI. I was in the process of filing the same report but got to know that it has already been filed and started and all the required evidence and information has been given above. I also stongly suspect socking in this case and want request CheckUser to check the users. I'm sure the IP match will be likely and confirmed. Also have a check for sleeper accounts. User thinks Wikipedia is a game and he will get away by doing all this. According to WP:SOCK this seems to be a case of "Good hand" and "bad hand" accounts where the user edits positively using one account and disrupts, vandalizes and trolls using the other account. No disruption will not be tolerated and both accounts needs to tagged as a confirmed sockpuppets of each other. Even User:Jayemd has numerous talk page warnings for vandalism and disruptive editing which makes the case quite legitimate given the editing history and behavior. Therefore i request the CheckUser's and Administrator's to take appropriate actions. TheGeneralUser (talk) 11:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Surprise level: goose egg. MWD already blocked. Jayemd given a very stern warning. Case is...cerrado. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I'd like to apologize for the sockpuppetry but when Bushranger made the comment about me vandalizing Wikipedia, it was unintentional. I am serious this time! I have only come down here to get that straight, ok? --Jayemd (talk) 03:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)