Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jimarey/Archive

Evidence submitted by JohnFromPinckney
Jimmjet89 is the oldest account here, editing only in June 2007, but Jimarey is almost the most prolific, with 2,878 edits (vs 	2,996 for Jarajet89, 590 for Jimmjet89 and 378 for Jimjet89), and since Jimarey has been the active one lately, that's the account I chose as master. All of these editors show a concentration on Rihanna and Chris Brown articles, some also dabble in Kobe Bryant, LA Lakers, and NBA. None of them have ever used a single edit summary (ES). Neither have ever made a single edit (AFAICT) to a Talk page, nor responded to the plentiful notices on their respective User talk pages.


 * Jimmjet89 edited eagerly from 2 June 2007 to 17 June 2007, when he was blocked (1 week) for uploading images with copyright problems.


 * Jimjet89 edited prolifically from 24 June 2007 to 6 July 2007, when he was blocked (2 weeks) for uploading images with copyright problems.


 * Jimjet9489: 454 edits from 12 July 2007 (during block on Jimjet89) to 18 August 2007. Many, many warnings for Image problems, blocked 25 July 2007 (48 hrs), 10 August 2007 (1 week), and 18 August 2007 (1 week), all Image w/out copyright info. Rihanna, Chris Brown, Marques Houston. No ES.


 * Jim9489: 427 edits from 2 September 2007 to 2 October 2007. Many warnings but no blocks, Images. Lots of Rihanna and Chris Brown. No ES.


 * Jet89: 333 edits from 4 October 2007 to 2 November 2007. Blocks on 20 October 2007 (24h) and 2 November 2007 (1 week), both Image copyright problems. No ES.


 * Jim89: 105 edits from 11 November 2007 to 9 December 2007. No blocks, no warnings. Rihanna, Chris Brown, Beyoncé. No ES.


 * Jralex!: 153 edits from 15 January 2008 to 12 February 2008. No block. Rihanna, Chris Brown, Kobe, Lakers, NBA. No ES.


 * Jimrey1: 130 edits from 30 March 2008 to 28 April 2008. No block, but warnings for Image copyright problems. Rihanna, Chris Brown, Lakers. No ES.


 * Jarajet89 edited actively (and contemp. w/ Jimrey1) from 26 March 2008 to 18 October 2008, the date of his third block. His blocks were on 24 July 2008 (31 hrs, images w/out copyright info), 8 October 2008 (24 hrs, editwarring), and 18 October 2008 (2 weeks) for uploading images with copyright problems.


 * Jimarey began editing on 21 October 2008 during the block on Jarajet89 and exhibited similar behavior regarding images (failing to add copyright info), although he wasn't blocked until recently. Jimarey was blocked (72 hours) on 16 July 2010 for edit warring on Kobe Bryant.

During that block, Jimjet89 popped up again to edit Kobe Bryant. He later did some paragraph regrouping on Rihanna, which reminded me of Jimarey's style.

I gather that most of these accounts might have been dormant for too long to use CheckUser, although I'd hope the quacking is loud enough to block these accounts otherwise. I imagine there are other sock accounts I didn't detect, too, especially before June 2007 (where I didn't even look), but I suppose CU can't be used to round those up. Jimarey and Jimjet89 aren't stale, in any case, and I'm sure the latter is evading the block of the former.

I see that User:Jarajet89 and User:Jimarey each contains a pointer to the same user at the Polish WP. I lack the fortitude to follow that up, especially since I have no understanding of the language. I don't know how this user has behaved over there. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
- All of the suspected socks aside from Jimarey and Jimjet89 are indeed stale, so a CU is pretty worthless here. ( X! ·  talk )  · @824  · 18:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Additionally, they're also probably too old to block. Most of them haven't edited since 2007, meaning that this entire case, with the exception of a few accounts, is pretty stale. ( X! ·  talk )  · @184  · 03:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I understand about CU not helping for the older socks, but, aren't these all obvious socks to you? Is there a statute of limitations for sockpuppets, whereby if a guy's not caught jumping from one to another (which was the case until recently here), the accounts can be saved and used later? Or maybe I misunderstand your usage of the word "stale" (maybe it has a technical meaning for you that I don't know about)? In any case, I'd expect the block evasions to draw some action. No? &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No there isn't a "statute of limitations". I think what X! meant was that CU cannot do anything here, that's all. That being said, that does not prevent an administrator (like myself) to exercise common sense and conclude socking. All accounts indefinitely blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 01:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)