Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jsteel7/Archive

30 August 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

A very same behavior of disruptive editing and vandalism. As User:Jsteel7 is the oldest account known (as of now) so the Sockpuppet investigations will be started in it's name and rest all of the accounts will be blocked and tagged according to that. Every account mentioned here has been blocked with some being as "vandalism only accounts" and rest as sockpuppets of User:Purpulgarillerjoos in the blcok log which can be updated once the sockpuppet investigation is completed. Here are the some key points and evidence information, the user creation log of many of these accounts matches in just minutes of each other and days. Many of these sockpuppets were created on August 10 and August 11, 2012. Important Note for running investigation- Although the accounts are blocked, a open investigation for CheckUser is necessary because it will bring transparency for everyone to see, find out any other additional sockpuppets/sleeper accounts, and it will lead to 100% confirming that all these accounts are indeed sockpuppets and so any more future sockpuppets can be reported here easily. I believe the user creation log and block logs of all these accounts say everything. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment below Jpgordon. As you have indicated that all these accounts are actually sockpuppets of each other by using CheckUser evidence, they all can be tagged as confirmed socks now. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 07:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Y'know, I said nothing of the sort. No point "at least regarding the ones I've blocked" is what I said; I did not confirm any or all of them, and you've acted incorrectly by tagging all of them simply based upon my statement below. But undoing it would be yet another waste of time. --jpgordon:==( o ) 14:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As i was already saying above, it was important for this investigation to be run so that clear decision can be made. I request an Independent CheckUser to confirm and verify the actual situation whether or not all these accounts are connected to the Sockpuppet master. I do not want there should be any false claims and misunderstandings either from my side or anyone else. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Jsteel7 has made an unblock request and by having a solid CheckUser evidence the request can then be handled easily and any more future socking detected can be reported here. TheGeneralUser (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * It's hard to see there's any point in this, at least regarding the ones I've blocked. They've all been unambiguous abusers of multiple accounts, or they've been blocked as vandals; whether they are all Jsteel7 isn't really important. Were I to process this request, I'd just do exactly what I've already done, and then put a big confirmed there for some of the vandals. --jpgordon:==( o ) 22:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * - Based on comments on user's page, where he says he is sitting next to one or more of these, I think CU is needed to filter through and verify some information, including if it is an IP that typically hosts many users, such as a public area or school, which of course the CU may be limited to respond about. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 18:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that Jsteel7 already has said that other accounts on this list come from his IP. --jpgordon:==( o ) 21:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Although you may have checked some accounts Jpgordon, but not all accounts have been checked in relation to the main sockpuppet master. So, only after when a CheckUser does the whole check everyone will be able to see the results, not just the CheckUser's which will bring open transparency and the ability to make all kinds of decisions quite easily. Almost all sockpuppet investigations which i have filed have led to clear results where accounts have been confirmed matches to each other and then clear decisions regarding tagging and blocking can be made very easily. A fully completed sockpuppet investigation also serves as a solid evidence for this type of case. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Group 1 - ✅:


 * Group 2 - ✅, but ❌ to other groups:


 * Group 3 - ✅, but ❌ to other groups:


 * does not appear to be related, may be a friend. Data is but can give that they are in the same area as Group 1.
 * I'm confident that group 1 are the same person (or they are passing the same computer back and forth) as these are not heavily used IP and edit in short time frames most of the time on the same day. I also purposely avoided confirmation off of school networks. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  17:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like a variety of admins have done all the mopping up, tagging and blocking, CU results are pretty clear here, nothing for me to do but lock up. Closing. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 16:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have now tagged all the sockpuppet accounts to their own respective sockpuppet masters. Thanks to CheckUsers DeltaQuad and Jpgordon, Admin Dennis Brown and others Administrator's also for their help and support. Thank you all. TheGeneralUser (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)