Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GEORGIEGIBBONS

Jamiecocopops

Jamiecocopops (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jamiecocopops/Archive.

Please note that a case was originally opened under GEORGIEGIBBONS (talk · contribs) but has been moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jamiecocopops. Future cases should be placed under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jamiecocopops.

– An SPI clerk has endorsed a request for CheckUser. A checkuser will shortly review the case.

13 August 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• Gimmetoo (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Cookiecrispjamie (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Edmund from Cardiff (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• PapaDrom (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Evidence submitted by Kww

Gimmetoo has claimed to be an alternate of User:Gimmetrow, but that identification is in serious doubt. In the midst of an ANI discussion about Gimmetoo's editing, NuclearWarfare blocked Gimmetoo until Gimmetrow confirmed the account. Although Gimmetoo responded to the block immediately, Gimmetrow has made no response. Gimmetrow has also not replied to my e-mail asking about Gimmetoo. All of this places this autoblock trip in a different perspective. Since Gimmetoo is apparently proclaiming a false identity, it isn't quite as reasonable to view the autoblock trip as a coincidence. Given the false proclamation, I think a checkuser investigation to find other linked accounts is necessary as well. —Kww(talk) 16:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the edit history of the autoblock trip, where it appears to have been manually constructed:Step one, Step two, Step three. Doesn't diminish the Gimmetoo/Gimmetrow confusion, but makes the link to Kellogsjamie far more tenuous.—Kww(talk) 20:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Jack Merridew

See [1] and [2] (wikichecker). The first sample is small, but that says two very different locations. I've no idea who Jamie is, but these onions have many layers, so I may have encountered whomever before. Happens all teh time ;) Jack Merridew 18:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

@ Karanacs && Atama. Sure, it could be an alt account; I see the similarities. But it's an unsubstantiated claim and the account is editing unhelpfully. 'trow could clear this SPI with a single edit. However, we have a lot of clever impersonators loose on this project, and many gravitate into orbit around me. Other possibilities that have occurred to me are that the 'too account was 'trow's but has been compromised, or that the 'trow account was for some reason fully scuttled. As said at ANI, I don't know these accounts prior before the other day. Jack Merridew 20:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

@ Atama. Yup, saw it all. The COM:AN thread is interesting and I'm looking at the PapaDrom/MPEGLA post below quizzically. See the back-to-back unblock-declines; people want answers and they're not forthcoming. I know from personal experience that socks get indef'd. They can get unblocked when they talk honestly about things. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

nb: GimmeBot (talk · contribs) seems to be rolling along unfazed. Seems to me that it would be getting autoblocked if it was on Gimmetoo's IP. 'too could also be 'claimed' via the bot account, which is surely confirmed as 'trow's. Jack Merridew 22:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Karanacs

I just want to point out that Gimmetrow's last contribution was May 4. Gimmetoo began editing frequently May 8. Gimmetoo's only edits prior to that were a note on the user page and an edit to Brenda Song, an article that Gimmetrow has been heavily involved in editing. The articles which Gimmetoo has edited are many of the same ones that Gimmetrow frequently edited and nothing like those of jamiecocopops or the other socks of that account that I looked at. Gimmetoo has also accurately answered questions on his talk page about the FA and GA processes[3], using language that is very reminiscent of Gimmetrow. Gimmetoo has also been active at WP:GA, an area that Gimmetrow also spent time in. The dots all point to Gimmetoo being a legitimate alternative account of Gimmetrow. Why the Gimmetrow account hasn't claimed them I don't know, but the evidence seems to overwhelmingly point to them being run by the same person. If the basis for running this CU is that the account is an impersonator, well, I'm not convinced. Karanacs (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Atama

I'd like to point out that Gimmetrow was blocked only one time, for violating 3RR at Brenda Song in 2008. Gimmetoo's only block prior to the sockpuppet accusation was for 3RR at the same article a couple of weeks ago. I'm inclined to agree with Karanacs here, I think they're the same person, unless Gimmetoo is a fiendishly clever impersonator. -- Atama頭 20:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

@Jack - Here's a timeline to further explain how implausible it seems for this to be an impersonator. In February of this year, the Gimmetoo account was created. No edits until April 2nd, with their first edit declaring on their user page to be an alternate account for Gimmetrow, and their second edit being to Brenda Song, removing some unsourced info. The account stayed dormant until the 8th of May, 6 days after Gimmetrow abruptly stopped editing Wikipedia without any notice that they'd done so. The sockmaster would have to be extremely lucky or precognitive to know 3 months in advance that Gimmetrow was going to stop editing in May, and then again lucky or have some secret knowledge to know on May 8 that Gimmetrow had truly stopped editing so that they could assume their identity. It just seems like common sense that this is the same person. -- Atama頭 21:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

@Jack - There's no mystery about the back-to-back declines. Gimmetoo made one single unblock request, and Kww and WJBScribe edit-conflicted and declined it almost simultaneously. -- Atama頭 23:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by MPEGLA

Added two more due to this. MPEGLA (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Per Special:Contributions/PapaDrom, I have added PapaDrom (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) to the list as of his obsession with "Fann Cup", something Specialk and his socks wouldn't STFU about. MPEGLA (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I still think that Gimmetoo is unrelated to Jamie but I'm sure PapaDrom is related due to the lacrosse obsession. Might as well get that checked. MPEGLA (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

• Also, please see Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Enwiki problem, need an admin -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

  looking at the archive, I can't see any relation to Specialkjamie/Jamiecocopops. Was this filed under the right guy? MPEGLA (talk) 20:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• FYI, there was a fairly manual three-step construction of the autoblock trigger mentioned above. Granted, they're all manual cut&pastes and not system generated. Kuru (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ah, ok. It's just that this Jamie guy seems to be obsessed with lacrosse and not Brenda Song MPEGLA (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

To me it looks like that Kelloggs jamie was just playing tricks on the admins as Jamiecocopops, Specialkjamie (the sockmaster) and other socks never edited Brenda Song so this may just be a prank. MPEGLA (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• If this user is blocked, from what appears pretty much everything, how do they comment in their defense? Akerans (talk) 22:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• By logging in on what is supposed to be their main account. That's the whole point here, to get them to prove that they are who they say they are. Logging in either as Gimmetrow or GimmeBot would suffice actually. -- Atama頭 23:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

•  Clerk endorsed - NW (Talk) 17:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• This is really quite strange. I have reenabled talk page/email access for Gimmetoo. I see a number of similarities between the two, but also a number of differences as well. Does anyone happen to know (approximately) Gimmetrow's location? If so, a checkuser might be useful to see if they are in the same location. NW (Talk) 23:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

---