Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pear-Jack/Archive

13 January 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

apparent accidental post as IP, Pear-Jack removes IP post, and then re-posts as himself. Pear-Jack has the same M.O. as .Encyclopedia-account/Encyclopedia-viewer who were already blocked for sock puppetry. – 68.7.95.95 (talk) 06:44, 13 January 2015 (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

 * and were brought to my attention just recently.  Pear-Jack was blocked per WP:NOTHERE, and I agree the IP is likely the same editor and have blocked it for a week for block evasion.  This editor appears to have their undivided attention devoted to deleting the article on Zeitgeist. I, JethroBT drop me a line 13:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Accounts tagged, closing. Mike V • Talk 19:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

18 January 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Justmakingacomment's "why is zeitgeist even on wikipedia?" is the same as confirmed sock .Encyclopedia-account's "I think it's safe to say that bullshit zeitgeist doesn't belong on wikipedia"

The_dirty_fruit_show's "anyone who is pro-zeitgeist should be immediately banned" (even if I agree that we'd be better off without them) is the same as Pear-Jack's "any defenders should be deleted/blocked right away because it's becoming too many to even count".

Same axe to grind about TZM, same inability to understand that just because we don't like a subject doesn't mean we're gonna delete the article. CU for sleepers. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2015 (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 is the two accounts listed above are related to Pear-Jack.  Tiptoety  talk 15:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Per the similar behaviour/POV, per previous socking, and per "possible" technical links, I have both accounts (tags as checked but not confirmed).  ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  18:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

24 April 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Quack quack, quack quack. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2015 (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

 * Delete-zeitgeist-from-Wiki has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of Pear-Jack. Thanks for the report. I, JethroBT drop me a line 03:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

28 April 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

The usual calls to delete the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Added Nteryourusername for the usual. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2015 (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

 * - - To compare  and  with each other and with  per this: .  Vanjagenije   (talk)  20:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Based upon the technical evidence, Nteryourusername, Ugene86938, and Delete-zeitgeist-from-Wiki are . Unfortunately it's not feasible to check for sleepers. The behavioral evidence seems sufficient, so I've blocked the accounts. Mike V • Talk 21:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)