Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jfgslo/Archive

22 June 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

IP 74.198.9.152's only edits have been to agree with Jfgslo in AFD discussions (see Special:Contributions/74.198.9.152). Two of the three edits by 74.198.9.247 are to agree with Jfgslo and the other is to a similar AFD. For 74.198.9.234 he agreed with Jfgslo in one AFD and participated in several similar AFDs. The IP always has the exact same !vote as Jfgslo, even when that is an atypical vote, and also often uses a similar (but more concise) rationale as Jfgslo. For example, at Articles for deletion/Subspace (Star Trek) (2nd nomination), the IP user posted the exact same "delete or merge" opinion, which was only expressed by Jfgslo. Another example is at Articles for deletion/List of Courage the Cowardly Dog characters, where the IP and Jfgslo are the only users other than the nominator so far to vote for delete, and both refer to WP:AVOIDSPLIT. In every AFD where Jfgslo and one of the three IPs I've listed both participated, the IP always posted second, giving the impression of a user voting first with his main account, and then again with an IP address. In addition, both Jfgslo and the IP like to write their !vote with a : (e.g. delete:), which while not much by itself, is still atypical enough that along with the identical !votes and similar deletion rationales adds to my suspicions that the Jfgslo and the IP may be the same person (see for example Articles for deletion/List of events of the DC Universe (2nd nomination), Articles for deletion/List of Courage the Cowardly Dog characters, and Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Mobile_Suit_Gundam_SEED_mobile_weapons_(2nd_nomination), where in each case Jfgslo and the IP are the only people to !vote that way). All together, the posting to the same AFDs, with the same !vote, a similar rationale, a similar posting style, and the IP consistantly !voting after Jfgslo lead me to believe the IPs are sockpuppets of Jfgslo. I'm requesting a checkuser for this since this may have affected the outcome of some of the AFDs, particularly Articles for deletion/Agumon (Data Squad). Calathan (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I was not going to defend myself, but Sandstein convinced me. I am not a sockpuppet nor have I ever used one. As I mentioned to Sandstein, I never edit without logging in and I believe that I have never done anything to be suspected of being a sockpuppet. I am truly annoyed because this is the second time that someone suspected me and I believe that a simple check to my contributions and my edit history, which both show that I have been editing longer than Anthem of joy or Claritas, would have been enough to demonstrate that I am not a sock puppet, like other editors did the first time. I don't think that this is the first time that other editors have copied my arguments in AfDs, so this makes me feel fact that this was done with the intention of overturning some of the AfDs that were closed with deletion. Because of this, I feel that requesting a checkuser was not needed or appropriate. There was no good cause, and my contributions do not even suggest that I use sockpuppets. This makes me believe that this will continue to happen as long as I participate in AfDs and my !votes are copied or annoy some editors, which really bothers me because that means that I most likely will be accused of being a sockpuppet every time that an editor dislikes my arguments or another editor copies them in an AfD. Jfgslo (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said on your talk page, I did not suspect you of being Anthem of joy or Claritas. I had no way of telling who was using the IP addresses, but I think the IPs edits were suspicious enough to justify this investigation.  Also, while I don't know what the IP editor's intentions were, I did not start this sockpuppet investigation with the intent of overturning any AFDs.  I did say to Black Kite on his talk page that I thought one AFD close would need to be reevaluated if sockpuppeting occured, but I hadn't expressed any opinion on what outcome that AFD should have had, and don't have any particular opinion on it. Calathan (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yet you suspected that the IP was me, even though my contributions do not even remotely show that I would do such an action. There was no evidence to suggest that I was the IP editor. Checking the edits you can actually see that the IPs did participate in other AfDs when I am not the only one with a delete argument or where I don't even participate:
 * Articles for deletion/Lazlo (character)
 * Articles for deletion/Narnian timeline
 * Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Downham Market
 * Articles for deletion/List of prepaid mobile phone brands
 * Articles for deletion/List of Ultraman Leo monsters
 * Articles for deletion/List of Monster Rancher monsters
 * Articles for deletion/List of monsters in Code Lyoko
 * Articles for deletion/100 runs ODI cricket partnerships by Sri Lanka
 * And the IPs do not use the same arguments that I use as evidenced in:
 * Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/List of events of the DC Universe (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Agumon (Data Squad)
 * Articles for deletion/List of Courage the Cowardly Dog characters
 * So, with all this evidence, I do not see how I was linked to these IPs in the first place, which just makes me angry because by merely checking the contributions, it would have been immediately clear that I am not related to those IPs and this makes me feel that this sockpuppet inquiry was not justified and it only raised suspicion against me. Jfgslo (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Jfgslo, I had no way to know if you ever edit while logged out. Both Keegan and Sandstein below say that the evidence appeared "obvious", so I don't think I'm the only one who thought the IPs edits looked like sockpuppeting.  Though it now seems that you've done nothing wrong, that doesn't mean that the sockpuppet investigation was unjustified. Calathan (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * . I'm not endorsing for a check against the IPs, but against the username that I've listed above. As for the IPs, I've blocked 74.198.9.128/25 for three days. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The IP range is blocked and so is the user, no need to establish a pattern of disruptive behavior since it's quite obvious. Keegan (talk) 06:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

A.j. is Claritas. Why isn't J. indeffed if he's votestacking with IPs in AfDs? T. Canens (talk) 07:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Jfgslo asked me (I don't know why) for advice on my talk page about this request, so I may as well share here what I've learned from looking at it: Two factors that make Jfgslo a bit less likely to be a sock is the fact that his account is some two years older than Anthem of joy and Claritas, and that he is still editing after the IP rangeblock. On the other hand, the behavioral evidence with respect to the IPs is quite convincing, almost too obvious a sock footprint to be true. So the IP is likely either Jfgslo or somebody who wants to do a joe job on him, perhaps somebody who knows that checkusers will not tie a user account to an IP. In that regard, a checkuser finding that Jfgslo is not the IP might still be helpful.  Sandstein   18:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The rangeblock in this case does not prevent logged in edits, so that's not evidence that J. is unrelated to the IPs. I don't think J. is Claritas, either. T. Canens (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A very quick check (that only looked at what IP addresses had been used, not useragent data) shows that Jfgslo is not remotely close to the IPs listed here. I did not look any further than that. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 00:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)