Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PapaJeckloy/Archive

29 August 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

PapaJeckloy is a writer of articles on Philippine subjects, many of which he submits to DYK. The nominations are supposed to be checked by independent reviewers familiar with the DYK criteria, and approved if they meet them. Twice in August, reviewers who are completely new editors on Wikipedia have given approval to PapaJeckloy's nominations.

The first occurred on August 10, 2014, nomination Template:Did you know nominations/Brod Pete, editor Gelkia31 approved the nomination at 08:09, having initially created a user page at 08:07, and then approved another editor's nomination at 08:14 with a "gtg" review (grossly inadequate for DYK, and puzzling that having done one correctly, would do another one wrong immediately after, and so quickly). Papajeckloy showed up at that other review and appeared to correct it, adding "I just want to help him/her". Gelkia31 has not edited since.

The second occurred on August 29, 2014, nomination Template:Did you know nominations/Juan Karlos Labajo, where editor EtitsNgKabayo (this account has subsequently been blocked, as the name apparently translates to "horse's penis") made three review posts at 07:17, 07:18, and 07:19; the only prior edits by this account had been to set up User and User talk pages at 06:52, less than half an hour prior per the contributions list. Note that this nomination had engendered some controversy with the original editor of the Juan Karlos Labajo article; EtitsNgKabayo's intervention not only resulted in the nomination's approval, but also the disqualification of the alternate hook proposed by that original editor.

These are two cases where a DYK nomination appears to have been passed by sockpuppets of the nominator, something forbidden by DYK rules (nominators are not allowed to approve their own nominations). I'm assuming a CheckUser is necessary to confirm that these are indeed sockpuppets, which is why I've requested that. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Comment by the accused user: Ok, i respect your opinion, it is clearly that Gelkia31 is a new user, that's why i helped him/her, i have checked his/her contributions, i have gone refreshing nominations in the DYK nominations, as you can see my contributions on that date where Gelkia31 approved my nom., I am reviewing many articles because i don't have any articles to create in my to do list, i considered it as my break, until i see a nomination there (i am reviewing many other articles prior to that) where he approved a nomination without implying the guidelines, so i helped him, i just assumed good faith edits, not sockpuppetry.

As you can see here, there is no common pages that we've edited, sorted by minimum time between edits by the users. I have nothing to deal with it, Gelkia31 reviewed other articles excluding mine, not only my nom. as you can see one of Gelkia31's review, that's why i helped him/her, Is being civil to others is a proof of being sock? And as i said i have reviewed many other articles before that.

Let's wait for the checkuser to confirm this investigation, but i am 100% sure that i am not a sock, and i don't used any of that accounts on my IP nor my computer, If i'm really a sock, i will accept all of my nominations, as you can see it's only two, I have nothing to deal with it, I just want to thank the nominator, by placing me into an investigation, i am here to prove my self. -PAPAJECKLOY (hearthrob! kiss me! &#60;3) (talk) 02:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

You can refer to the IP adress used, i will wait for a CheckUser, i am sure that i am not, let's see if i am a sock. -PAPAJECKLOY (hearthrob! kiss me! &#60;3) (talk) 03:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

And i also think that they are just testing WP, i am innocent, approving my nomination do not mean that i am a sock, Gelkia reviewed other nominations not just mine. --PAPAJECKLOY (hearthrob! kiss me! &#60;3) (talk) 03:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I am currently nominating 6 articles on that time, why do i accept only two, if i'm really a sock? -PAPAJECKLOY (hearthrob! kiss me! &#60;3) (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's just likely and our IP'S are not the same, and  is a legitimate alternative account so i think this investigation should be closed and i think this is not confirmed and this is just an allegation. -PAPAJECKLOY (hearthrob! kiss me! &#60;3) (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - There is more that meets the eye to this case and requires careful analysis I can't provide right now. I'll pick this up tomorrow. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  04:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's, plus declared account is ✅. --  DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  23:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Master (and alt) blocked for 1 week. Both socks blocked indef and tagged. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

02 September 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Another mysterious new user only editing in the DYK area in a similar manner as the other socks and approving one of PapaJeckloy's nominations. Helen Online  12:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)  Helen  Online  12:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate the closing admin's advice re a topic ban. I don't think we can rely on the editor's "retirement" promise. Helen  Online  14:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Wow. . Even if PapaJeckloy is unblocked consideration should be given to a topic ban from DYK and GAN (and FAC, ITN and OTD just to be sure). —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 12:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of the topic ban. He's becoming a nuisance in DYK. He's also known for being aggressive on other editors (me and User:001Jrm specifically) when another editor points out his grammatical errors. Well, that's another story. -WayKurat (talk) 13:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I got similar treatment when I commented on the Brod Pete DYK (see User talk:Mendaliv/Archive 19). There's some other curious behavior as well (see Template:Did you know nominations/John Rey Tiangco), though it probably goes outside the scope of this SPI. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 13:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Gongon3336 is ✅. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A topic ban would be a possibility if you went to AN. However I'd suggest that if they continue socking the blocks will just get longer so it'll be somewhat of a moot point. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Given the issues this user has presented, along with the continued socking, I have extended the block to indef. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

09 September 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

This editor turned up a few days after PapaJeckloy was blocked, seems to be a bit confident in navigating Wikipedia for a brand new user and shares many of the same language traits and interests as PapaJeckloy (see their entries at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Members for example). Belle (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' If account creation was blocked on September 2, how were they able to create a new account on September 5? How do we stop it from happening again? Helen Online  07:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A couple of reasons: Autoblocks are temporary and this user has access to more than one IP address/network. That being said, steps have been taken to curtail account creation. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Account blocked and tagged. Mike V  •  Talk  16:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

04 November 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

I know that WP:DUCK per ElNiñoMonstruo trolling and disruption editing because the other articles like Hawak Kamay (TV series) and attacked for User:McVeigh victim of abuse. 197.224.27.205 (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * This is reported by one of User:Bryancyriel/User:Mamaluigi2 sockpuppets. He reported this after one of his socks (User:Laila Chikadora) has been reported to SPI. And it's obvious that Jeckloy and ElNiñoMonstruo are two different persons. Can an admin close this SPI? -WayKurat (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't get what that IP is trying to say. Take a look at this thread in ANI and help me out. --Ankit Maity  «T § C» 15:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Maybe this is a different case. Anyway, he's already blocked. Nonetheless, I stand by my judgement that Jeckloy and ElNiñoMonstruo are two different persons. The former is more fond of editing PBA related articles while the latter is more concentrated to Philippine TV related articles, most especially shows that airs on ABS-CBN. -WayKurat (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
ElNiñoMonstruo is (quite rightly) indefinitely blocked for trolling and other disruptive editing anyway, so it doesn't make much difference whether that account is a sockpuppet or not. No point spending more time on it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)