Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jmhhacker/Archive

06 September 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I came across a sort of complex problem. (Justin Matthew) is the guy behind HouseholdHacker (HH for short), a Youtube channel of questionable notability. The HH article was created in 2009 by, who was subsequently blocked as a vandalism-only account.

In August of this year, Jmhhacker created his account and tried to add info about himself to the HH article, and was reverted. He has edited only on HH and an AfC article on himself. Right after he was reverted, he stopped editing for a bit, and was created. Nittmann immediately started on an article in his sandbox on Justin Matthew, see diff. He also made some strange comments towards User talk:DESiegel, see diff. Then Jmhhacker posts messages stating it is Nittmann using Jmhhacker's account, see diff, diff, diff, and diff. GregJackP  Boomer!   00:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

@DES. I would defer to your assessment on the matter. GregJackP  Boomer!   01:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

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


 * I didn't find the comments so strange. I thought they were not untypical from a new and overly self-absorbed, aggressive editor. I have seen many comments similar in tone from editors whose would be articles i deleted under A7 and other speedy criteria. However, that really has nothing to do with whether these two accounts are one person or not.
 * Given the continued assertions of some other editor having deleted part of the draft he posted, and his failure to understand that there were two drafts, similar in outline but different in detail, I don't think User:Nittmann and User:Jmhhacker are the same person. What I suspect is that they are two people who know each other off-wiki, and that Jmhhacker gave Nittmann his password to make the recent post on my talk page, authorizing the deletion of one of the two drafts. That is of course a violation of policy (nor was it needed), but it may not have been done with ill-intent.
 * But even if we assume the two are in fact one person, I don't see any serious violation here. There has been no attempt to pose as two people in a discussion, gaining added weight. Nittmann said that he had been in off-wiki communication with Jmhhacker, getting images from him, and to soem extent editing at his request, so this wasn't even an attempt to conceal possible COI. I wouldn't say this is a fully legitimate alternate account, but it seems to have been fairly harmless so far. If the checkuser looks into the matter and determines that these are actually a single individual, then a single primary account ought to be chosen the other declared and perhaps blocked. (Note that if my assumption about a shared PW for the recent edit is correct, checkuser will presumably show the same IP for the recent edits by both users, and the initial creation of the draft by User:Jmhhacker may be too far back to check. But I think this is a case of meatpuppetry, if anything, or of advocacy editing. DES (talk) 01:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  19:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Closing as no action taken. Please refile if there is new evidence of socking.