Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OttomanJackson/Archive

Evidence submitted by Doc9871
The IP predates the OttomanJackson account, but I've named OttomanJackson as the master: if this was in error I apologize. The IP actually claims to be OttomanJackson in this unsigned comment at an AN thread, where OttomanJackson was requesting his topic ban on Michael Jackson articles be lifted. OttomanJackson denied being the IP in April, and has not yet responded either to the AN report, or his talk page concerning the alleged sock puppetry. Contributions to Michael Jackson articles by the two accounts are readily evident. 24.15.54.202 was blocked on May 7 in connection with OttomanJackson, and 166.137.140.101 was blocked as a sock of OttomanJackson on May 10. The main IP was again blocked for block evasion on May 14. Both IPs geolocate to the Chicago, Illinois area. This looks like a duck, IMO. Unless he is authorized to use these IPs as alternate accounts, OttomanJackson has already broken his promise here by socking (see first diff in report) and should be blocked for sock puppetry. Doc9871 (talk) 02:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims. Okay Guys. This is one big mistake. 24.15.54.202 is me, no denying. But, I am a busy person and sometimes forget to log in. No harm intended. :) User:OttomanJackson

Comments by other users
Clearly some sort of sock by WP:DUCK. Also geolocate shows that the IP socks both are in Illinois. Usb10 Let's talk 'bout it! 17:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
I won't close this SPI case (as I've now just commented on the WP:AN thread), but I strongly recommend closure and defer this to the ongoing ban discussion and have it noted there. –MuZemike 04:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There is an ongoing discussion at AN about this so discussion should be centralized there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

21 August 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The duke's very first edit was, followed just six minutes later by the kaiser's. Some similarity between user names and style of editing is noticeable as well. Favonian (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

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

I understand the confusion entirely. Me and DukeOfBrunswick are friends who live in the same apartment building. My mom and his mom know each other. They are both from Brunswick. When he moved here, he could not find an apartment building in the city of his choice (Rhinelander, Wisconsin) and my building had empty rooms, so I told him, and he got a room in the same building. A couple days ago, he noticed that the article was at Braunschweig instead of Brunswick. We talked about it, and he decided to start a move request. Because we had talked about it, he called me and told me about it right after he started it. I agreed with his reasoning and rational, and so I voted support. Is there anyway to add a userbox to my page to indicate we share an IP, so this doesn't happen again. What is similar about our editing styles? KaiserWilly (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Favonian before he mentioned style - Particularly the first person anecdotes from all 3 :
 * "As someone who lived there for more than 2 decades, I can say that Brunswick is the most common English Name." Duke of Brunswick
 * "Support My dad (from NZ) saw Maori more frequently, plus macrons do not exist" KaiserWilly
 * "As a native monolingual Anglophone, I have to say Brunswick is much more familiar to me" OttomanJackson. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't look carefully at Favonian's nomination only 2 Users. The comment about the 3rd User was based on my own perception of similarities on the Talk:Māori people RM and Talk:Braunschweig RM, I strike the above. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The thought did actually cross my mind, but AGF got the better of me. I also considered including because of the "off the bat" interest in RM. Favonian (talk) 06:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think Aerospace1 is related. At least, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Johan_%C3%85berg&diff=prev&oldid=507427678 this] and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jos%C3%A9_Ben%C3%ADtez&diff=prev&oldid=507075051 this] looks fairly atypical for someone who has a disclaimer on their talk page saying "[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OttomanJackson&oldid=508491431 All diacritics will be removed from messages, according to my Anglicization policy.]" (Nice catch btw, In ictu oculi.) Jafeluv (talk) 07:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  19:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * with respect to Aerospace1 due to lack of evidence of sockpuppetry.
 * The explanation that they share an IP address doesn't wash as they are also editing from the same computer. Also note that OttomanJackson is the oldest account. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Highly alarming. OttomanJackson clearly has strong feelings about English-language place names, and has apparently been blocked for disruption on the topic in the past. There's also Sockpuppet investigations/OttomanJackson/Archive; the reports should probably be merged. OttomanJackson's interest in the Brunswick/Braunschweig article goes back to at least 2011: . The communication between the accounts does look really weird if you assume this is all one person: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KaiserWilly&oldid=504813779][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OttomanJackson&diff=prev&oldid=505038347][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OttomanJackson&diff=prev&oldid=505038616][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OttomanJackson&diff=prev&oldid=508491274][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAttilaBrady&diff=505041684&oldid=396615371]. I don't think it makes much difference, though – at the very least it's meatpuppetry that's indistinguishable from sockpuppetry. There's a good case for an indef block for all accounts here. Jafeluv (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I support the call for an indef block. In addition to the points made by Jafeluv, OttomanJackson is under an indefinite topic band from Michael Jackson related topics, and that has been violated by the AttilaBrady sock. Favonian (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would just like to say that I was never notified of this investigation, and only found out because I am watching the move to Brunswick discussion. The fact that I was not notified of this discussion or given a chance to defend myself means that the investigation was done improperly. Due to the fact that I had no chance to defend myself, an indefinite block should not be given to me.OttomanJackson (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * All accounts blocked and tagged. Will leave it to a clerk to merge this case to Sockpuppet investigations/OttomanJackson. Jafeluv (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Merged.
 * Highly alarming. OttomanJackson clearly has strong feelings about English-language place names, and has apparently been blocked for disruption on the topic in the past. There's also Sockpuppet investigations/OttomanJackson/Archive; the reports should probably be merged. OttomanJackson's interest in the Brunswick/Braunschweig article goes back to at least 2011: . The communication between the accounts does look really weird if you assume this is all one person: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KaiserWilly&oldid=504813779][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OttomanJackson&diff=prev&oldid=505038347][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OttomanJackson&diff=prev&oldid=505038616][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OttomanJackson&diff=prev&oldid=508491274][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAttilaBrady&diff=505041684&oldid=396615371]. I don't think it makes much difference, though – at the very least it's meatpuppetry that's indistinguishable from sockpuppetry. There's a good case for an indef block for all accounts here. Jafeluv (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I support the call for an indef block. In addition to the points made by Jafeluv, OttomanJackson is under an indefinite topic band from Michael Jackson related topics, and that has been violated by the AttilaBrady sock. Favonian (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would just like to say that I was never notified of this investigation, and only found out because I am watching the move to Brunswick discussion. The fact that I was not notified of this discussion or given a chance to defend myself means that the investigation was done improperly. Due to the fact that I had no chance to defend myself, an indefinite block should not be given to me.OttomanJackson (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * All accounts blocked and tagged. Will leave it to a clerk to merge this case to Sockpuppet investigations/OttomanJackson. Jafeluv (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Merged.