Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GregJackP

GregJackP

GregJackP (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/GregJackP/Archive.

27 June 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• Minor4th (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Evidence submitted by Fut.Perf.

The contribution profiles of GregJackP and Minor4th are extremely similar [1]. Minor4th's very first edit served to back up GregJackP's position in a talk page discussion [2]. They then went on to support each other's position and edit together on multiple pages, on topics as diverse as Indian Child Welfare Act, Stop Handgun Violence and Abbott v. Abbott. Among other things, they were active together making contentious edits on a sensitive BLP (now at User:Milowent/Donald G. Martin), related process discussions (Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Don Martin (Austin, Texas)) and the related AfD/DRV (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Martin (public affairs)). As a follow-up to this, they have both together been pushing a contentious user RFC against an admin (Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Sarah) and finally, apparently in a WP:POINT reaction, together created Administrator abuse on Wikipedia. All in all, it looks as if the Minor4th account was created with the sole purpose of backing up GregJackP's edits, either as a sock- or "meat"-puppet.

Both accounts have very similar daily activity profiles and often edit at alternating times, though never (as far as I can tell) at precisely the same times. This is a sockoform time pattern.

If these accounts are sockpuppets, it would be a serious case as both have taken part together in several AfDs, mediation attempts, a user RFC and other processes, always voting on the same side, and committed at least one case of edit-warring for inclusion of BLP violations together (for which Minor4th is currently blocked). Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

From talkpage of user:

I wish to provide evidence, but it will take me some time to gather diffs. I would like to request that I be allowed such time to prepare my defense, rather than this being a rush to judgment like it appears to be. Since I and the other user are currently blocked, it won't hurt to allow me a reasonable amount of time to prepare this. If someone could post this to the SPI it would be appreciated. GregJackP Boomer! 15:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

and another:

Until I can get to my laptop, I am not able to provide diffs. I can show that Minor4th (talk · contribs) and I GregJackP (talk · contribs) are different users through posts at the same times at various locations. We do know one another but that is not WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT. Minor4th has helped me on some articles. I have an alternate account which was set up to protect my identity in articles that are unrelated to any of these, and for which there is no overlap. I would be willing to provide the details on that off-line, and would request that it not be put in public view per WP:OUTING. The alternate account was not declared solely to protect my real world identity in a discrete area of Wikipedia articles. The alternate account has not been used in some time, and is not relevant to this matter, as there is no overlap on articles, has never been used at any location for votes, etc. GregJackP Boomer! 16:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

-- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

and another:

My first article and the 143d Inf userspace article were copied from existing articles as templates. The coding for tables and templates were already there. I have experience editing web pages and limited (20 years ago) programming, so it wasn't that hard to pick up on.

I edit a lot using a T-mobile phone, a laptop w/ a Sprint aircard, and a computer at work and at home (Verision Fios). I believe Minor4th is on AT&T and Clear. GregJackP Boomer! 16:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

-- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Minor4th

Reading the SPI and checkuser results, I have this to say: My mobile edits are from an iphone and other edits are from a Mac laptop and iMac using a clearwire connection. Those should be different data results than anything from GregJackP. Greg and I know each other and live in the same metropolitan area. I have helped him with some articles and research and he has helped me with some technical aspects on wiki, but neither of us controls the other's edits or anything close to that. I don't really care if you block me because Wiki is just a diversion from my real work and I don't edit that much anyway. I would hate to see Greg blocked or banned over this, however, because he has made some valuable contributions and will go on to be a productive editor.

On Jimbo's talk page I disclosed that I had created another account a week or so prior to creating Minor4th but abandoned that account because of real life privacy concerns. Off-wiki, some people had connected the account with my real life identity. I request that the account not be disclosed publicly because there are some scary individuals involved in the subject area and they know my real identity associated with the abandoned account.

I think this whole deal is unfortunate and I honestly think there is a bit of a hive mentality at work here, and like I said I don't really mind if I am banished for saying that but Greg and I should not be treated as one and the same. I may provide some diffs in a bit to show more evidence that GregJackP and I cannot possibly be editing from the same location and cannot possibly be sockpuppets. Minor4th • talk 17:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Additional comment by Minor4th

additional comment: The checkuser requested that a whole range of IP's be checked and noted that dozens of accounts had been created and not used. I do not believe the admin was saying that those accounts had been created by me or by GregJackP, although that is apparently the way that people are construing it on the SPI discussion. I have not created dozens of unused accounts and I can't imagine that Greg has either. I think the comment should be clarified before there is assumption that either of us has created dozens of accounts for nefarious purposes. Minor4th • talk 17:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC) (Posted by Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C B)} 18:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC) in response to helpme request)

Comments by other users

• Neutral Comment: I would like to briefly note that in a previous discussion regarding another article, both of these users, as well as myself, were accused of sockpuppetry but it was never taken to SPI. I originally assumed that the claim was false for two reasons: 1) I can personally say for certain that the claim against me was unfounded, and 2) the main contributors to the discussion in question were GregJackP and myself, and Minor4th joined the debate much later. However, in light of the new evidence, I am beginning to wonder if I was simply unfortunately enough to be appended to a valid sockpuppet case involving these two editors. I have nothing to add in terms of evidence, but I thought I should state the circumstances of my previous interaction with the subjects of this investigation. Hopefully a checkuser report will shed some light on this case; I sincerely hope that it proves to be unfounded and that the two editors are simply suffering from the same (hopefully curable) case of disruptive editing, but if there is a proved connection, I would firmly support an indefinite block of both users given that they continued to be involved in a controversial AfD which had already been tainted by an unrelated series of sockpuppets on the AfD for the Don Martin article. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

  Additional comment: I hope that previous (informal) claims made by a couple of editors that I am also associated with these claims have now been put to rest, but I would like to clearly state now that if any editor raises this concern again, I will happily volunteer to be included in the checkuser report to put this matter to rest once and for all. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Let me make it clear that I certainly don't suspect you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. After having started here saying in his first edit: "I am new to editing wikipedia, so I will take some time looking around and familiarizing myself," in a matter of a few hours Minor4th became an expert editor using advanced templates on articles and talk pages. I do not think that both usernames belong to the same person, but I think it is clear that both users form a meatpuppetting team as in WP:DUCK and WP:MEAT. Just one example:

"GregJackP said he was retiring, so following him around won't be an issue in any event, but thanks anyway for your advice. If he stays, then I will likely continue to edit in the same areas."

DVdm (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral comment: please note that both users cannot reply here, as they are currently blocked. They may respond on their talk page. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment as someone who has been involved in this whole affair, I must say that this fails the duck test for me. I can't see the similarity between the two accounts, other than their interests. In talk page discussions, they display very different personalities. Minor4th is shrill and difficult to converse with reasonably. GregJackP, on the other hand, seems quite reasoned in his discussion style, and is much more civil in the way he works with others. It is of course possible that the two are opperated by the same person who is carefully segregating their edits to give each account a different personality. However, I do not feel these are very sock-puppety at all. Also, the use of the term "meatpuppet" also appears to be being stretched to its limit. Meatpuppets are NOT two users that edit together and work to support each other a lot. A meatpuppet is a brand-spanking new account where someone asks their friend, who is unfamiliar with Wikipedia otherwise, to show up and support them. These users are familiar, quite possibly IRL, but I don't see this as a meatpuppet situation either. --Jayron32 15:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
• Wikistalk results. Not a lot of overlap on articles, but then, neither editor does a lot of contributing to articles: GregJackP 22.85%, Minor4th 27.08% Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
• This is extraordinary as a new user's second edit, unless it is the revival of a deleted page. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Wow! Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• There appear to be a good number of deleted edits at User:GregJackP/John Loisel through which the article was built up. So it's not really GJP's second edit. T. Canens (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Actually his first edit was just the word 'placeholder', the 2nd edit was substantially the existing article. It wasn't built up, it was basically created by his second edit if I'm reading the situation correctly. I don't think the best lurker could do that. Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
• A similar thing with a newly created user subpage [3] on the second day after the user page was created. Where did this come from? Can this be the result of a page move? Strange. DVdm (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)No, it was built up in his userspace (User:GregJackP/John Loisel), he posted the completed article to mainspace, then the userspace draft was deleted, so none of his edits to that draft showed up in his contribs, and it looks as if it's his second edit. This is actually his third edit, I think, and most of it was lifted from Richard Bong. It was then improved upon through a series of edits. Check his earliest deleted contribs. T. Canens (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
• [4] seems to have been copied from 1st Infantry Regiment (United States). GJP seems to like using existing articles as a template for writing similar articles. Nothing wrong with that. T. Canens (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

That explains. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, looking at the deleted edits shows that the Loisel page took only one edit to go from nothing to nearly complete, and the rest of the (now deleted) edits were comparatively minor touchups; in fact most of the subsequent edits removed content rather than adding it. —Soap— 16:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I also became suspicious last night when I went to both users and asked them to shrink down their rather large signatures which were originally the same height. Although this is rather flimsy evidence, the other stuff above convinced me that something is up here so I added this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Block them all. "dozens of created but not used accounts" Off2riorob (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. It seems we're waiting on whether Minor4th can be confirmed as a sockpuppet of GregJackP, but the fact that dozens of alternate accounts have been created (and apparently at least one used, albeit for apparently innocuous purposes) suggests that there is a serious violation going on here. If the user was unaware of the rule against sockpuppetry when the accounts were originally created, he is certainly aware by now and should have done the responsible thing and declared that he had created the accounts, and asked for them to be blocked. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Checkuser request – code letter: C (Vote stacking affecting outcome )

Current status – Endorsed for Checkuser attention.    Requested by Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

 Clerk endorsed Something is up here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty complicated. Both editors extensively (though not exclusively) edit from smartphones. GregJackP has at least one undisclosed alternate account, but it's not used abusively (but rather, is used to edit one particular topic that has some crazy/scary people involved.) I'd like another checkuser to check the entire blocked /25; it seems to me there's some seriously fishy stuff going on there, with dozens of created but not used accounts (though none of them seem related to any of this). I can't tell from the technical data if there's any relationship on the mobile edits. The edits that come from other IPs, however, do show a geographic similarity; they seem to be in the same major metropolitan area -- which isn't too surprising, given that some of the common edits are very regional. I suppose there could be an innocuous reason for editor editing another's user page. I've no conclusion to offer. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

 Relisted for a second CU opinion on the /25 range, per request from Gordon. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 16:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

---