Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Samjackson93436/Archive

16 June 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

All single-purpose accounts participating in the Articles for deletion/Tim Jenkins. Master created an AFC for the subject on June 7, 2012, after which ADH80112 created the article in mainspace using the same content. GDG93436 and Samjackson93436 similarities make this a duck in my opinion, but requesting CU to assuage any concerns. Best regards,  Cindy  ( talk to me ) 16:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

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


 * All are commenting on the deletion discussion for Tim Jenkins (begging for it to be kept, obviously) and have edited almost nowhere else. None of the accounts have edited at the same time, ever. Quack.  elektrik SHOOS  (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Sam here, I spent a week’s compiling all the data, learning the Wikipedia tools to put together the article on Mr. Jenkins. If you look at my account you will see it too a lot of revisions for me to get the article to a good place. I did have my friend (adh80112) help me with the final formatting and clean up due to my limited skill sets. He is not a sock puppet or robot. We both still agree that the article is worth publishing. We have not violated any rules. I did share with friends that the article was out there and I can see some of them have responded to the deletion recommendation that appeared today. I did not ask them to beg for the article to be kept. I am disappointed after all my hard work that I am accused of being a sock puppet and/or bot. I think when Wikipedia looks at my revisions they will see how much work went into the article and the honesty behind it. --Samjackson93436 (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I read the "Sock Pupet" section and that is not me. I was told about the new article and did read it and saw the deletion recomendation and decided to respond. I was not asked to go "vote" or repond to the deletion notice, did on my own free will. --Collegedanwright (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - There is clearly socking amongst SPAs.
 * GDG93436 !votes in an AfD and promises that notability is forthcoming.
 * Collegedanwright !votes and promises that notability is forthcoming.
 * Adh80112 !votes and promises that notability is forthcoming.
 * Samjackson93436 !votes and promises that notability is forthcoming.

All are accounts which were created in a short time frame that converge on this article and AfD. We need to investigate and also look for sleepers. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC) WilliamH (talk) 01:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocks issued on ample evidence. Sleeper check would probally be of benefit. Master given two weeks pending further connections made with CU. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  01:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Were done here then. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  01:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

17 June 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Another potential sock. Given the last three confirmed socks were participating in that deletion discussion, it's worth checking to see if this one is related as well since as of right now that discussion is this account's only edit.

The comment they posted could also be construed as a vague legal threat, based on the username and the tone of the comment.  elektrik SHOOS  (talk) 23:18, 17 June 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

 * This is the same tune that the other socks were singing and given the previously confirmed socking, this warrants checkuser. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  02:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ducked. WilliamH (talk) 02:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. Closing. ⋙–Berean–Hun<b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  02:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)