Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jilljoejack/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Brand new account immediately went to an AfD for one of my articles and accused me of being an undisclosed paid editor. He (or she) demonstrates too much familiarity with Wikipedia processes and acronyms to be a new user. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  23:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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


 * Comment Other SPAs on this low-traffic article have included:, who repeatedly tried blanking the page around 20 October and then got angry; who blanked it on 19 October, left a talk page comment, and left;  who blanked it, made two small changes, and hasn't come back. The pattern is fairly similar, and this latest one is another SPA who knows how to throw terms around, though lacking in rationale. tedder (talk) 07:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment It is clear that jilljoejack is not a new user and is only intent on disruption.  HighKing++ 18:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what other accounts were used. I thought the IP check could identify who this is. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  07:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Tim Templeton is a undisclosed paid editor who should be banned. This is a fumbled checkuser attempt by a non-disclosing paid editor. He should be banned.Jilljoejack (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTHERE Please tell us what other account names you’ve edited with. It’s clear you’ve been editing for more than a week.  TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  01:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi - please advise as to what venue that would be. 10 year editor with almost 100 articles here. TimTempleton <sup style="color:#800080">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  08:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:COI/N (COI) or WP:AN/I (other behavioral issues). Both venues require evidence of the issue. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 19:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Timtempleton - You didn't list an account that you believe that is a sock (or master) of. Can you please list that? What specific evidence do you have that can demonstrate that your beliefs are likely? I can't just run a check simply based off the fact that one account went straight to the AFD (though that is suspicious). Who am I comparing this to? Do you have diffs of evidence? I need more information here...  ~Oshwah~  (talk)  (contribs)   04:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Closed. No evidence of socking provided. Other concerns should be handled in the appropriate venue. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 06:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

There's been something suspicious, but hard to narrow down precisely. But now that a second account was created, there's a very clear pattern: create user page, make some minor edits, then go after on Notarize (company) and Profile Defenders. Specifically:

Jilljoejack:
 * creating User:Jilljoejack was their second contribution.
 * commenting on Articles for deletion/Notarize (company), accusing Timtempleton of being a paid editor.
 * The user then edited the Notarize article
 * The user then nominated Profile Defenders as their fifth-ever edit, 25 minutes after creating their account. ( )

Blacklisteffort:
 * creating User:Blacklisteffort as their first edit, including some basic wiki templates
 * a minor edit to Notarize for their second edit
 * (many small edits and comments on AFDs follow)
 * , 38 minutes after first-ever edit. Cites NCORP for deletion.

I have been involved in writing the Profile Defenders page. Notably, it's a company that basically specializes in getting pages on the Internet taken down, perhaps by representing themselves as someone else. My curiosity was piqued when I saw a user with a redlink to a talk page throwing around accusations of "paid editing", then seeing how new the account was and their experience in the Wikipedia world. It's rare for a user page to be created as basically the first edit- and then twice? Commenting on the same AFDs? It deserves a fresh look. tedder (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Relevant: Sockpuppet investigations/Ericjcarrmiddletownde/Archive; this sockmaster related to Profile Defenders became active after being dormant for ~7 years. I didn't discover it until. tedder (talk) 02:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

And another new user on an AFD:. tedder (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' Not related. Lots of exp. here from other non-wikipedia. But I don't know everything. Thanks. Blacklisteffort (talk) 13:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * : There's too much overlap to be a coincidence. Vote stacking in the AfDs is also a concern. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 02:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * All appear ❌ as far as technical evidence goes.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   07:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am confident that Jilljoejack, Blacklisteffort, and Bluecoat12 are all somebody's sockpuppets or meatpuppets and have . I am deeply suspicious of Ericjcarr returning after 7 years of inactivity to go after Tedder, but I am not confident enough in my assessment to take any action. If any of you folks have actual evidence that tedder is being paid (that is, better evidence than a blog post by a company whose job literally consists of influencing reputations), please forward it to the Arbitration Committee. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)