Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jump Guru/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Apologies for the staleness of this. Since there is now a lengthy ANI post about this editor, it seems worth documenting.

When I posted a welcome message to QubixQdotta back in May 2016, they responded in a kind of snippy way that they were an experienced editor so it should be "welcome back" instead. In that response, since blanked, QubixQdotta took credit for Scribner's Magazine. I mistakenly dismissed this comment. That article was created as a tiny stub by User:Captain Kevles, which was blocked as an attack account in 2006, and looks like it was part of a childish sock farm, maybe? I didn't get an answer to the obvious questions this raised, and I didn't pursue it, since it was such old news and looked like an outgrown childish vandalism phase or similar. I'm not sure why anyone would brag about that, though.

From QubixQdotta 's talk page I noticed the ongoing ANI post. One of the editors mentioned QubixQdotta having been around for a whole year, which reminded me of this, so I looked closer.

Unfortunately, I think QubixQdotta might be a sock of Jump Guru instead. A large amount of content was added to Scribner's Magazine by Jump Guru in 2009. Jump Guru has only had a sliver of activity since 2011. It looks like Jump Guru reactivated specifically to comment on several AFDs, include one !vote which matches QQ on the same otherwise obscure AFD in October 2016 (Articles for deletion/American Vision Windows).

There are no other obvious sock signs I've found, but this seems extremely unlikely to be a coincidence.

There is absolutely no connection between Scribner's and this obscure window manufacturer that I can see. There is also virtually no overlap with the rest of either Jump Guru or QubixQdotta's regular areas of interest. Neither typically comments on deletion discussions, either. After this and a few other AFD posts, Jump Guru re-retired.

QubixQdotta mostly edits about criminal gangs, while Jump Guru mostly edited about anime and manga. Other than listed, both accounts share an interest in hip hop music, but the time gap makes this pretty hard to assess. Both have difficult to read custom signatures, including special symbols for contributions/talk. It's that suspicious reactivation in 2016 which is the most troubling. Grayfell (talk) 06:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * An investigation for some Japanimation fan named JumpGuru and you think he is me? Okay first of all that makes no sense and second) I have never spent time doing anything like that... It's so bizarre to me I can't even begin to process this. New users here don't get treated very nicely so I thought I could get ahead of that by saying I was an experienced editor. I deleted that because it was foolish. I don't know anything about Japanimation and I don't even understand what JumpGuru means. I believe the term "its a small world" applies to Wikipedia, because I see you Grayfell almost everywhere. [qub/x q;otta] ▤▧ 10:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not only on their user talk page that QQ claimed to be an experienced editor: in their very first edit, to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force, they write: "It's been awhile since I've been on the Wikipedia game and I thought I'd come back because of a very significant problem..." . This is not a casual response to a welcome message on a talk page, it's a claim initiated by QQ in their edit.Furthermore, QQ's fifth and sixth edits ,  are to Edit filter/False positives/Reports, a decidedly odd place for a newbie editor to be contributing to.Given the similarity of their names, and the fact that both editors focused on the proper infobox genre for Better Off Alone, an article that QQ provded 10.5% of the edits and 47.7% of the text for , it's probable that QQ was once User:QubixRaver, a short-lived editor  who made one edit to Better Off Alone (to change the genre) before the existence of QQ, then responded to a talk page request for sources by writing "It's been a long time since I've been in my Wikipedia groove since my last account. I probably need to check up on the rules again." So, clearly QQ was QubixRaver, but, also clearly, there's another, earlier account.  The overlap between QQ and Jump Guru on two completely disconnected articles is telling evidence, especially when combined with clear evidence from their own mouth that QQ/QR has had previous accounts, and has no compunction about dissembling about them -- as in the statement above -- when it suits them.Perhaps NYB  is correct and even this new evidence doesn't indicate any abuse of the alternate account policy.  I'm not sure if being deceptive about one's use of previous identities (after at first spontaneously admitting to having them) is a violation of "avoiding scrutiny" or not, but at the very least, QQ ought to come clean about their past record, and stop denying what's patently obvious about QR, and whatever other past accounts they have had. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm throwing this out there for other editors' consideration, because I don't really know what to make of it. As I look at the lists of most edited articles for both Jump Guru and QQ, it seems very clear that these are two different editors, as there is really no overlap in subject areas. Jump Guru's edits are all to anime-related topics, and QQ's editors are to articles about streets gangs and electronic music (with a more recent move into alt-right/Nazism).But here's the perplexing thing: the two places that they overlap are on Scribner's Magazine and the AfD for the now-deleted American Vision Windows, which are both completely  outside the normal editing subjects of both users. There is absolutely no indication that either Jump Guru or QQ would be interested in an historic periodical topic such as Scribner's, or that either of them have any interest in windows or houses or promotional editing.  How did this very odd overlap come about?  I don't have a clue, which is why I'm presenting it for the evaluation of sharper minds than myself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Good find on QubixRaver. This does look like a longer pattern of creating and abandoning accounts. Reactivating those accounts to !vote in an AFD is definitely disruptive and is definitely a problem, if that's what happened. If not, it's an unbelievably unlikely coincidence. Why Scribner's? Why a window company? Is it possible this is paid editing? That seems unlikely, but not as unlikely as it just being a coincidence.
 * There definitely is a strong tone similarity between QQ and Jump Guru, also. Compare this to this where both accounts use the phrases "you guys" and "personal bias" and start with aggressive rhetorical questions.
 * It's confusing. Why take credit for Scribner's, of all things? Two weeks after QQ removed the comments about "welcome back", they say "Honestly I come from more simpler time of Wikipedia when people really didn't care as much about sourcing obscure info". I don't know when Wikipedia didn't care about sources, but it certainly wasn't in 2015 when QubixRaver made a single article edit. Very odd. Grayfell (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, paid editing crossed my mind because of the "keep" vote on the windows article (which I can't see because I'm not an admin, so I don't know how promotional it was -- enough to be deleted, I guess), but who on God's green earth would pay for editing to a defunct general-interest magazine from the late 19th- and early 20th-centuries? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Scribner is still an imprint and it places a lot of emphasis on its long history and the brave role the magazine played -- see here for example. The magazine is also mentioned in the lead of the article about the publisher/imprint: Charles Scribner's Sons.  Seems like right down the line for marketing people to want to buff up the WP article on the magazine.  Here is the diff of Jump Guru's edits - a dramatic change.   The imprint does have a marketing staff, per this.  So that is who want to improve the article.  Given how outside the norm that work is, paid editing is a reasonable explanation.  I would not be at all surprised if these accounts were part of a larger sock farm, and that is reason to do a CU in my view.  I would encourage it to be run, and the results only given if there is indeed a sock farm.   Jytdog (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Considering the recently discovered socking and paid editing centering around publisher Bloomsbury USA and their author Franz Lidz, those are good points. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * here is another just weird edit by Qubix. Straight up corporate update.  Nothing related to gangs or hiphop.  That looks like "editing with the wrong sock on".  :) Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, that article (Mandalay Bay, about the resort in Las Vegas) has a lot of multiple-editing by IPs, as well as a handful of edits by User:Mbaysocial. I think it's not outside of the realm of the possible that a lot of the editing there is paid for. (Although one has to account for people who stay there and then want to contribute to the article - maybe that's where QQ fits in.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There's also the corporate-type edit just a day or so before the Mandalay Bay one, to Rockstar (drink), in which QQ added a branding to the article. That one also looks like a possible edit made on assignment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, here's another out-of-the-ordinary edit for QQ: a day before the Rockstar edit, sitting between bunches of edits to List of peckerwood gangs is this edit to Metal Mulisha, a clothing brand, in which they added a logo to the infobox that they had uploaded. Now, this edit may well be explicable by their attraction to street gangs and Nazi-related subjects, given: "Some graphics appearing on Metal Mulisha's clothing line include a skull wearing a helmet resembling one worn by German soldiers in World War II, while on the company’s logo, the 'S' in 'Mulisha' is represented graphically by a lightning bolt that resembles the double lighting bolts insignia Runic 'ᛋᛋ' of the Nazi major paramilitary organization Schutzstaffel, or SS." according to the article. Metal Mulisha also markets (or marketed) an energy drink - is that what lead to the Rockstar edit? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In retrospect, this is too easily explicable by the editor's interests, so is unlikely to be an example of paid editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Going back to the relationship between QubixQdotta and QubixRaver, who both edited Better Off Alone to change the genre in the infobox, the similarity of the language they used to claim they had previous experience as an editor is worth noting:
 * QubixQdotta: "It's been awhile since I've been on the Wikipedia game..."
 * QubixRaver: "It's been a long time since I've been in my Wikipedia groove since my last account."

Also, in this edit on their talk page, where they rejected a "Welcome" message because they thought they deserved a "Welcome Back" message due to their having been "a very experienced Wikipedian." They cannot be referring to QubixRaver here, since that account only made 3 edits. . So, while it may seem that the evidence connecting QQ to Jump Guru is thin, we still know, from QQ's own claim, that there was a previous account before QQ and QR. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, as much as I may want it to stick, and as hard as I tried to find something better, the evidence for paid editing is pretty thin gruel. My experience with paid editors is not all that extensive, but its mostly been PR people, either in-house or consultants, dealing with someone's or some company's specific needs on a fairly large scale.  If QQ is a paid editor, it looks more like there's a website where you can grab a quick $5 by making a specific edit -- and I have no idea if sites like that exist or not. The evidence could have been explained by friend Jump Guru asking friend QubixQdotta to !vote in an AfD for an article about his dad's business (for instance) -- i.e. meatpuppetry -- if it weren't for QQ claiming authorship of Scribner's Magazine, and Jump Guru being the only editor who presents themselves as a reasonable choice for who QQ was at that time.I know it would be easier for admins and CUs to go ahead with this if there was a more straight-forward narrative, but the summary I posted here is still the clearest we have, I think. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * that is really helpful - I was having a hard time understanding the smoothness of that process in light of the rest of the editing. copyvio/close paraphrasing explains it. Jytdog (talk) 05:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that does explain a lot. The paid editing thing doesn't make a lot of sense by itself. I've tangentially worked in the beverage distribution biz before, and the overlap with cheap canned energy drinks and peckerwood culture is very high (I've seen multiple people with Monster Energy tattoos), so the Rockstar edit seem unsurprising. Maaaybe this is a dip into Fiverr-style freelance or something? The motive is speculative, but the activity is pretty conclusive. Again, the main cause for concern for me is the AFD !vote. That's a nasty road to go down. Grayfell (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, if I can sum up what I think is known at this point: This, it seems to me, it certainly sufficient to justify a CU scan, based on QQ's own admission of past activity, the obvious connection of QQ to QR, and QR's admission of past activity. Since both JG and QR will be stale, the scan would primarily be for more recent accounts connected to QQ, since the gap between the known (or suspected) accounts is so large. There is no doubt that socking has gone on, by admission of QQ and QR, the question is who, when and under what circumstances.
 * QubixQdotta wrote on 2 occasions that they had edited Wikipedia previously;
 * QubixRaver overlapped with QubixQdotta on the Better Off Alone article, to which they made the same edits;
 * QubixRaver also said that they had edited previously;
 * QubixQdotta took credit for the Scribner's Magazine article in his past editing;
 * The only likely candidate among the editors of that article for having been a former account of QQ is JumpGuru;
 * The only other known connection between Jump Guru and QubixQdotta is a shared interest in electronic pop music, a major interest for QQ and a minor one for JG;
 * Either QubixRaver is an earlier account of QubixQdotta (or one of them), or there is another account or accounts, as yet unknown
 * Either Jump Guru is the earlier account referred to by QubixRaver (or one of them), or there is another account or accounts, as yet unknown
 * QubixQdotta and Jump Guru both voted in an AfD which, if they are socks, is a violation of WP:Sockpuppetry; the AfD was for an article which is totally out of both their normal subject areas.

QQ has, with their dispute with User:DanielRigal reported at AN/I, their editing on Template talk:Nazism sidebar, and their WP:OUTING and WP:Casting aspersions there and on their talk page , become a very disruptive editor, so it would be good if something were done about them sooner rather than later. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Another possibility

 * Another editor just came to my attention: . They are currently editing, and overlap with QubixQdotta on 10 articles:, which are List of peckerwood gangs, Nazi Lowriders, Peckerwood, Aryan Brotherhood, Surenos, List of Juggalo gang subsets. Juggalo gangs, Public Enemy No. 1 (street gang), Aryan Brotherhood of Texas, and White Aryan Resistance. This is the core of QubixQdotta's subject interest, and the Ks159081 is editing concurrently with QQ.  Their surly and combative attitude, as judged by their edit summaries ("Ok, whoever keep making "La Mirada Punks" a page, which is not, just stop please, your making yourself like a Drunken Idiot", "Ok. Who's sloppy mistake was it to put "Japanese", really, and especially Native Japanese American, what you been smoking?", "This is reverted because a User by the name of "Niteshift36" foolishly said there no reliable source, yeah right, what is reliable in your world pal") is similar to that of QQ's as seen on their talk page and in the incident reported at AN/I.   Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth (and it may be worth nothing, or it may be an indication that there is a connection between Ks159081 and QubixQdotta), 21 minutes after I posted the above, QubixQdotta posted an attack on me on Template talk:Nazism sidebar.  That in itself could be significant, but it's perhaps more significant that the attack was essentially a repeat of a comment they had previously made on their talk page, after they had outed me, and been warned by Drmies to stop, ,  at risk of being blocked , and further informed that their other aspersions against me made no sense. . Given that the risk to them of repeating these aspersions in a more public place was the potential of being blocked, they must have had a good reason to lash out at me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be totally surprised either way. The overlap in topic is high and both are extremely aggressive in similar ways. Ks159081's timecard is very different, with activity at totally different times. Ks159081 rarely uses talk pages or the minor checkbox, while QubixQdotta does both. Ks159081's few talk page comments seem much more accommodating, however, and also noticeably laxer with grammar and spelling, as well. Talk:Neo-Nazism seems mainly just confused, which is a change.  This edit demonstrates a willingness to dive into OR and opinion which seems like an extremely odd choice if Qubix is trying to deflect attention while also socking. Grayfell (talk) 02:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Whatever one might think of the evidence, I don't see any evidence presented that has been an abuse of the alleged multiple accounts. In any event, Jump Guru is stale for checkuser, so any evaluation would have to be behavioral only. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the material added to the Scribner's magazine article is a paraphrase of the education website "http://spartacus-educational.com/USAscribners.htm", and using this instead of any of other available sources indicates an unsophisticated user, not a paid editor--not that someone cannot be both.  DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * While QubixQdotta clearly has used multiple accounts, there's no real evidence of misuse. The evidence linking them to Jump Guru is not particularly convincing. As such, I'm closing this with no action. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)