Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeffman12345/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Vandalism, of Portal:Current events/2017 December 14 an edit summary said NOTHING WILL STGOP JEFFMAN12345 Clarkcj12 (talk) 04:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

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


 * 72.178.152.52 and 70.115.254.152 also mentioned this screen name on the same article's edit summaries. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * IP's already blocked. Closing. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Editing Patterns and behaviors, based on other SPI, targeting Arbcom. Clarkcj12 (talk) 06:44, 14 December 2017 (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

 * IP's already blocked. Closing. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

IP claimed to be this user in edit summaries when vandalising Portal:Current events pages. see: [1 ] and [2 ] Iffy★Chat -- 13:32, 19 December 2017 (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

 * . GABgab 20:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

has a long history of calling me 'yo', as seen here and threatening to create accounts named after me, as seen here. L293D (☎ • ✎) 17:39, 18 July 2018 (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

 * Account now blocked. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Look at his own edits for evidence. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:14, 21 July 2018 (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
Blocked, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Obvious sock, see his own edits. L293D (☎ • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 13:20, 21 July 2018 (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
Blocked, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Admitted they were a sock of jeffman here. For record and possible sleeper check. Sorry for filing case here and not under proper title. Please forgive me. PS Ips currently not blocked <em style="font-family:Rubik;color:Lollipop">JC7V <em style="font-family:Ebrima;color:Purple">-constructive zone  05:35, 8 August 2018 (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
IPs + several more proxies are now blocked. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Claims he's Jeffman. Very exciting. Drmies (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * There's another case filed at Sockpuppet investigations/jeffman12345, maybe it should be merged here? -★- PlyrStar93  → Message me. ← 17:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Could an admin clerk please merge Sockpuppet investigations/jeffman12345 into this case? Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Doing... GABgab 01:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Vandalism on Portal:Current events/2018 August 10. Admitted to be Jeffman12345 in edit summary. JeffMan111111 (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Adding 182.237.120.19. Vandalism on Za'atar with edit summary "JAFFMAN12345 IM RUNNIN LOW ON IPS" Meters (talk) 05:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour. funplussmart (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2018 (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

 * ✅, tagged. Materialscientist (talk) 05:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Closing. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Confirmed sockpuppetry in edit summary Kpgj  hpjm  13:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Too obvious ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 13:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * FYI, There are about 20 proxies blocked today. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 13:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I saw that User:Jeffman52001 was blocked in 2016 for repeated violations, and had earlier tried to create a presumed autobiography "Jeffrey Landman". I don't know if it will be of any help to this investigation, but fwiw. David Brooks (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * IP blocked. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

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


 * Continuing activity in recent hours. Edits from the 18 IPs shown above were signed by jeffman and detected over the 24 hours ending 2018-08-10T21:44:50Z. Includes taunts "got new batch of ips jeffman12345" (31.214.157.211 on Weston Airport) and "zzzuzz wait till i get ipv6 ips :) jeffman" (117.1.70.54 on Henry Graham (poet)). David Brooks (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * On further checking, I see that all 18 have already been blocked. Whoever is also on this case, thanks. David Brooks (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Closing. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Vandalised WP:SOCK telling users to look up the master. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * 184.22.237.204 vandalized two articles and two WP-space redirects; claims to be jeffman in two instances. All quickly reverted. David Brooks (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Also commenting as jaffman and jaffman12345. David Brooks (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets


Same as other socks. Kpg jhp  jm  05:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 05:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked indefinitely by Gogo Dodo .  Kpg  jhp  jm  05:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I know. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 06:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

WP:duck (see edit summary), only reporting the ip because they edited in early August and weren't blocked in any checkuser checks. So for record and possible sleeper check, (also unblocked) <em style="font-family:Rubik;color:Lollipop">JC7V <em style="font-family:Ebrima;color:Purple">-constructive zone  04:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC) <em style="font-family:Rubik;color:Lollipop">JC7V  <em style="font-family:Ebrima;color:Purple">-constructive zone  04:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Reporting the recently created, and blocked user purely for record keeping reasons. We should run CU for sleepers though. — <span class="monospaced" style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran (talk)  02:59, 22 August 2018 (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

 * No further action is needed. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

User is interested in resurrecting a salted page about Ed Krassenstein, which was created by User:LovelyGirl7. Tym_Whittier's topic interests and writing style is quite similar to LovelyGirl7's. Note the writing similaries:,. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' The sequence of events: 1) I read about the "Krassenstein Brothers" for the 1st time in my life a couple of days ago. They're banned from Twitter, and they're leftists.  I want to know more. 2) I come to Wikipedia to learn more. 3) I discover 1) there is no Article and 2) there used to be one, but it was deleted. Read, read, read, read, read.  I think maybe it was deleted because the account that started it was banned, and maybe Wikipedia deletes Articles from people who are banned. 4) Also I think WP:SpeedyDelete happened because the Krassenstein Brothers are "note notable", which is odd, I think. 5) Do some research, and find out there's lots of RS on them, that they've been accused of committing crimes, the RS goes back at least 2 years, and the recent ban from Twitter generated even more RS. 6)  Questions like "Why was the Article deleted?", "Were they REALLY "not notable"?  Maybe it's because a biased set of Editors don't want to publicize the existance of "something bad" from the Left.  Is Wikipedia "censored"? 7)  Ask some questions, like "Why was the Article deleted?" "Why can't I see the original text?" "Are they hiding evidence?" 8) What about now?  Does the recent ban from Twitter make them notable, or is the possible conspiracy going to perpetuate? 9) Ask "78" to see the text after I read where you can request this.  He says he'll restore it to my sandbox, but it's not there. 10) Follow up, asking "78" what happened to it. Then find "Jamie", figure she was involved in the deletion in some way, and ask her about it. 11) Bad reaction from "Jamie" 12) Sock puppet investigation.

I was more interested in doing the forensics. I always assume my paranoid conspiracy theories are wrong, but when you have nothing else to go on (meaning and absence of awareness and understanding of Wikipedia Policy), that's the default. Figured it was an opportunity to learn something. Maybe I could provoke the resurrection of the Article in some way, i.e. "contribute". From my perspective, they were notable then and they're notable now. There's plenty of less-notable figures in popular, online, cutting edge "troll politics" that have Articles. Are the Krassenstein Brothers "protected" from bad press in some way? The thing about a hypothesis is that, once you've defined it, you set about in a deliberate attempt at disproving it. The more it survives those attempts, the more valid it becomes. What I'm looking for substantive Wikipedia Policy for LOTS of things. Go read my work on "Gab". People complain about "walls of text", and too many questions and sea lioning, etc... but fundamental questions go unaddressed. I read the "theory" of Wikipedia Policy, and then I go about looking for how that's actually implemented IRL. Similar? I don't think so. Dissident? Sure. Which of all the "sock" accounts put out real effort at 1) Learning Wikipedia Policy and 2) attempted to implement it while 3) putting effort into ignoring how those policies are frequently ignored by others, who have obvious POV and use their superior knowledge of Wikipedia Policy to 1) Push POV and 2) deplatform or otherwise marginalize those that disagree with them. If "similarity" means "people who disagree with people who agree with each other", then sure, by that loose (and meaningless) definition, there's some "similarity" (if you don't think about it too much, and go with the feelz. And yes, I've been steeped in online Alt-Right jargon, but also FYI have never been on 4-chan. I agree with some things, and disagree with others. That's the beauty of "free speech" on a unrestricted (or less restricted) platform. You get to pick and choose what you agree or disagree with, without having someone else's mandated narrative spoon-fed to you.

Anyways, I just resisted the temptation to delete all of this and play "strategically". This is (above) what I'm about. One thing I've noticed about the Left in general (here, and everywhere else) is that they are quick to make accusations with little to no accountability or "blow-back". Yet, in other realms, there's this thing called "boomerang". I think, at minimum the accuser should be required to enunciate in discussable/debatable language where this "similarity" is. She used added, and loaded language like "uncannily" to enhance the accusation, and my point is it should also raise the level of evidence. Had she (this "jamie" person) said something like "Excuse me, but I have a slight suspicion that this "Tym Whitter" person is a sock of "X", I'd have more faith in the process, because that could be considered and accurate, and therefore legitimate concern, however the loaded language of the accusation indicates a lack of evidence and a strong desire to achieve a desired outcome, based on the idea that florid and adjective-laden language will somehow compensate for a lack of evidence and/or an unwillingness to enunciate it. She got shot down the 1st time, for reasons.

In short, I plead 1) Not guilty.  2) Innocent and 3) Consider boomerang, please.Tym Whittier (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC) Also I don't even know what "salted" is.  I just read the Krassenstein Article was "salted".  "Never ascribe to malevolence that which can be better explained by ignorance." If "salted" means you can't even ask about a deleted Article, then there should be some kind of language to that effect.Tym Whittier (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine anyone who wasn't affiliated with the Krassenstein's wanting to recreate an article about them (as their primary purpose seems to be seeking attention). The article can easily be unsalted if an established and trusted editor where to request it, if somehow their "twitter fame" becomes "actual notability." Regardless of of whether you are LG or someone who's editing strongly resembles LG's, many others have noted on your talk page that you are not a "new" editor as you claim and that you you don't seem to be here to create an encyclopedia. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 22:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I just read this, and need a period to "back down", as I have a new belief that OhNo itsJamie Talk and I can work this out.  I ask that no one else post here until I've had time to formulate a "collegial" response.Tym Whittier (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Really? You ask for a boomerang on the OP, but you don't want anyone to else to comment in the thread? I've never heard of a boomerang on an SPI. Are you really claiming that admin Ohnoitsjamie is a sock? If not you must be suggesting that Ohnoitsjamie has made such a bad-faith SPI post as to require immediate blocking. If so, the place to request such a  block would be at WP:ANI, but I would not recommend that you do so. Meters (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I asked for time to formulate a "collegial response". Please read the text above again.  Also I didn't know that "boomerang" only applied to SPI's.  New information, and thank you.  Is this type of information written down anywhere, and if so where? What I knew is that sometimes people that complain about certain Editors occasionally get the outcome they were seeking leveled at themselves.  You should read that part about malevolence vs. ignorance, because that reaction was exactly what I was hoping to avoid.  Besides the above, do you have anything constructive to say about this investigation?  Because while I feel a certain level of "measured response" is appropriate for her, you seem to be here to "stir the pot".  FYI I really don't want to go down the "bad faith" road here.  My primary concern is how things will be after this investigation is concluded.  Not looking to make any enemies.Tym Whittier (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * [Responding to Ponyo] Thanks for that. You might also note that my IP has changed in the last 2 weeks, but is still in the same area.  That's because I'm using my neighbor's WiFi while I wait 30 days to get new Internet Service where I live (long story about Spectrum). I think this is a "learning opportunity" all the way around and I'd like this investigation to continue to roll, if that's acceptable.  I'd like the time & opportunity to practice my "collegial response skills", even though my emotional inclination is not in sync.  Can I even post here?  If not please delete.Tym Whittier (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
❌. Putting aside the technical characteristics, I can't think of a LG7 sock that has lasted this long without being blocked. Closing. --Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've struck my findings and comments above. I was, embarrassingly enough, thinking of a different LTA. That said, technically I think that Tym_Whittier is . However, the behavior is sufficiently similar to keep this case open. And because I screwed this up, I'm going to let someone else make the decision whether this is LG7. My apologies to .--Bbb23 (talk) 03:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I just blocked a LovelyGirl7 sock last week that was editing with the standard technical matches as typical LG7 socks. I can tell from the CU log that the Tym_Whittier account has been editing consistently from an unrelated geolocation. I agree that, purely from a technical standpoint, this is unlikely to be LG7.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Based on Ponyo's and my (redone) findings, I'm closing this with no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Continuing to push the article Punta Gorda bus fight despite a decline and a block of the now-blocked, including editing an even worse WP:BLP minefield draft at User:FLnews1/Punta Gorda bus fight (a WP:ONEEVENT from fifteen years ago that filled a few minutes on cable news). Based on this comment at the bus fight's AfD in mainspace, they've decided to not only quack, but outright goose-honk their presence creating that page.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 07:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

ETA Now using an alt account to try to keep the article.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you everyone for buttoning this up before it got out of control (what a mess!). I've added a link to here at Sockpuppet investigations/Incorrigible Troll.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 21:16, 12 September 2020 (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

 * I'd like for another CU to have a look at the data for PuntaGorda1. StonewallJackson1 and StonewallJacksonFan6 actually link to User:NathanBedfordForrest1, who is linked to Incorrigible Troll / Starship9000 but claims LovelyGirl7. I'm not sure if it all matters, but it would be nice if another CU can decide whether to block the first listed IP, who shares a bunch of editing characteristics with the various socks. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, block it. There are a pair of sequential edits that are unambiguous and damning. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 03:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * User:NinjaRobotPirate, did you happen to block it? I didn't keep notes so I'd have to check again. Drmies (talk) 13:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think everything is blocked. I think you're probably right that it's not incredibly important who the original sock master is. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * For the record, LovelyGirl7 and Starship9000 (and everyone else here) are in fact Incorrigible Troll. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ? EVERYONE? I mean we know that Jpgordon is one, but ME??? Drmies (talk) 01:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I note you haven't denied it ;) No yes seriously though, although I can't speak with any first-hand certainty about Jeffman12345, I am certain that LovelyGirl7, UCLAgirl623, Incorrigible Troll, the blocked users mentioned in this report, amd many other undocumented blocked socks besides, are all socks of Starship9000. For the clerks looking on in confusion, this is as Mrschimpf says above, a mess, so I'm not asking for a mega-merge. However let it be noted. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Aw shit, busted. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 21:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)