Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jenimcphersoncow/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

During a dispute about how to show/describe General Electric's headquarters at Talk:General Electric, a new account (the sock above) was created and intervened in the discussion (as a second opinion according to the sockmaster). The sock states a position identical to that of the master in a seemingly very convenient manner. Then later, the puppet appears to slip and say "I don't even know them and I've only presented facts to you this entire time." as if they are the sockmaster here. This all started happening after I suggested a WP:Third opinion or WP:RFC as a way forward to resolve the dispute. Also related is I believe the master is the same as IP 74.76.67.208 who has done similar edits to General Electric, but I don't know if it has been used for socking as such. Use of checkuser is only a suggestion to prove they come from the same person/location if the previous evidence isn't considered hard enough. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

To further comment on this, while I think this user has indicated through a number of article edits that they want to seriously contribute to the Wikipedia, and I appreciate them admitting to their sockpuppeteering, I am troubled by their easy willingness to create duplicate opinions in the process of determining the direction of an article's content. From a content dispute perspective (not at play here technically), I am likewise troubled by the user's unwillingness to acknowledge very strong reliable sources that supports a view they do not hold (re: General Electric). This was preceded by a lot of unnecessary battling and personal attacks against me (as 74.76.67.208) over cites I claimed were needed in various department store articles. I am teetering on the edge of whether this user has (or will have) the levelheadedness required to contribute to an encyclopedia in a professional-like manner. At the very least, I think this user needs a vacation from this site, with a request to study some of the key tenets and policies in the meantime. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 23:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Now, the sockpuppet master is crowing like this case was closed in their favor, with the edit summary "They put that crazy looser steve in check". I try hard to not take personal attacks to heart, but this is abusive, and the cherry on top to abuse I've taken from this user in this and his IP variant. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 09:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

If there's going to be any block of the accounts, some action should also considered for IP 74.76.67.208, which is the same user lately, and likely would be used for evading any block. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 21:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

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

gab I'm not at all denying that is me, I didn't realize not using only my account was violating policy. I am very sorry and it wouldn't happen again. 74.76.67.208 (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I personally knew what I was editing to be true so therefor I thought the editor continuing to tell me that it wasn't (after I provided so many sources backing up my claim) was just being un reasonable. I didn't really have time to keep editing so I thought it wouldn't hurt to tell him what he wanted to hear. I didn't realize it would violate policy and wikipedias wishes. I am a reasonable man and took a very long time trying to get him to understand that he was wrong. I am sorry for violating the policy. I have never had an issue with anyone else before. I always feel I source my contributions very well. I never claim anything to be true that I don't know or believe to be 100%. I am always willing to listen to other contributers opinions and usually spend a lot of time doing so. I am not perfect, but I really have tried to be here on wikipedia. I'm truly sorry to anyone I've upset and promise to try my hardest to make sure it never happens again, if given the oppritunity to do so. Jenimcphersoncow (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

No that account was not me but that is my IP address and I thought that's what the issue was concerning. No I am clearly not that person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenimcphersoncow (talk • contribs) 00:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * User continues to edit under multiple accounts (see here) as either a sockpuppet or meatpuppet even after responding at this case. Bahooka (talk) 03:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * User continues disruptive editing (such as here) against sources and talk page discussion, this time as the IP address. Bahooka (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Please, compare these two accounts. The second is pushing for the same edits as the alleged master (/), and showed up right after the filer asked for a "third opinion or RFC." The alleged master soon replied, "Well there's your second opinion." GABgab 21:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Were you using both of these accounts? GABgab 00:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , and  are ✅.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  20:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies to all for my inaction., what would you advise we do here? Thanks, GABgab 18:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I became aware of this sock case due to an RFPP complaint about General Electric. The article history is full of red-linked accounts making similar reverts, all insisting that GE's headquarters hasn't really moved to Boston. This pattern continued even after the above conciliatory statement by User:Jenimcphersoncow. I'd favor an indef of all three accounts, and would invite GAB to comment on my plan. EdJohnston (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. It's worth noting that despite the apology, they continued to use multiple accounts (as well as the IP). Admin action required: Please block all three accounts indefinitely for using socks to continue an edit-war. Also, please consider a 72h block of the IP. Thanks, GABgab 21:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've blocked indef, and . Can someone else do the tagging? The IP resumed active editing on September 14 which is before the creation dates of the three accounts, so it's possible the IP is the 'sockmaster'. As a result I've gone ahead with a two-month block of the IP for abusing multiple accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've tagged the accounts with the oldest, Debramartinchase, named as the master. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)