Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jacknicholson(2nd)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Jacknicholson

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Jacknicholson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Marshalbannana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

jesup 19:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Repeated identical edits (now with misleading summaries, including "minor edit" to hide it from some) on Katana. Examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katana&diff=88449160&oldid=88300373
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katana&diff=88298322&oldid=88296556
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katana&diff=88292391&oldid=87346989
and compare to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katana&diff=87346728&oldid=87272508
by User:Jacknicholson and many, many other identical edits by him (and before page was semi-protected by anon-IP's identified as sockpuppets of him). jesup 19:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I ain't no sockpupet, run a check user if you will, i've just reveted your nonsencical removals.Marshalbannana 19:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A check of the other known sockpuppet IPs for Jacknicholson and the list of anon-IPs used for repeatedly (25+ times) inserting this text and youtube video link show that almost all are BellSouth dynamic DSL IP addresses, plus an edit or two from a school lab account in Georgia. jesup 04:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A note for reference, since Marshalbannana has taken the sockpuppet notice down on his page due to no CheckUser being requested. The "Notes for accuser" don't say you have to do so (or even that you should). In this case, I doubt it would help since the anon-IPs used by Jacknicholson and used to insert this edit before sprotect are all dynamic IPs from BellSouth (plus one school IP from Georgia), so CheckUser is not likely to give definitive results. I have no problem with requesting Checkuser, I didn't see any benefit and there was no suggestion that I had to. jesup 15:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how typical of you first you deface my user page, accusing me of being a sock because you disagree with my edits, then when your ten days expire you lack the courage to ask for a check user. likely because you know I was innocent and you simply aren’t asking for it so you don’t have to issue a retraction or an apology. This cowardly behavior is disgusting, all you veteran users just decide to go and beat on the noob as the fast way to adminship myfirst twelve days have consisted of nothing more than abuse from you.Marshalbannana 16:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say that you are or that you aren't. However, your edits began right after the previous sockpuppetteer was blocked from further editing. Similarly, your edits have focused only on the same article his were on, specifically, the same exact revision of the same exact text. This revision contains text that has been found unfit for the article by consensus on the talk page of the article, but was reverted continuously by the previous puppet/teer.So you see, the situation appears that the old sockpuppet was blocked from editing, and now someone else is fulfilling exactly the same actions as him with no appearance of other intent. That is enough to get more than one person to suspect (see: "suscpected" sock puppets) that the old puppetteer may be using a new puppet.- xiliquiern ^Talk 21:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that Marshalbannana started re-inserting this text exactly 4 days after the previous inserter (User:Jacknicholson) was reported, and 4 days is the minimum age of a newuser before they can edit sprotected pages. Note also the deceptive summary for Marshalbannana's last re-insertion before this case was opened: "m (sourced, looks better)" - marked as a minor edit. jesup 23:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creation time[1] was about 40 minutes after Jacknicholson was blocked. jesup 03:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While not directly to the question of puppetry, the discussion on the issue of this text occurred in Talk:Katana#Bullets. The comment from an anon-IP previously associated with the now-banned Jacknicholson vowed to continue to re-add the text. (See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jacknicholson and the edit by one of his known IPs.[2]) The only comment from Marshalbannana on Talk (after multiple messages on his talk page, and after this case was opened): "liar! you've shown no willingnes to compromise, or discus."[3] jesup 22:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ya havent given any evidence, just a bunch of rambling about some other actor-user that has no conection to me if ya want a check user go ahead that wil only exonorate me.Marshalbannana 23:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[4] lots of people disagre with your autocratic edits and i am just one of them. Now of course I keep reverting that same edit because you snapped at me in a very rude maner when I first stumbled upon it and then accused me of being a spupet so of course I wont back down now, not to force and threats at least. Marshalbannana 21:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

jake b and marshalbannana r the same person: User_talk:Thumperward#Vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.36.251.234 (talk)

FWIW, I don't think that's true. Chris Cunningham 16:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no reason to suspect "jake b". I know nothing about him. If there is evidence, I suggest opening a third case. A quick glance makes me think he is NOT a sockpuppet of Jacknicholson. Removing jake b. jesup 18:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea who marshalbannana is. What is this crap about? Jake b 16:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may not matter, since Marshalbannana indicated for a time that he "will" be abandoning the account, but since Katana was fully protected his editing pattern has appeared consistent with Jacknicholson's former pattern (basically trying to force this into Katana until it was protected, and editing Iraq war pages). This obviously is not conclusive proof, just some circumstantial evidence. jesup 16:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Dec 16 & 18th, Marshalbannana struck out his name on this page[5] and then marked himself as "Aquited"[6]. — jesup 05:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Dec 27th, an anon-IP user (probably Marshalbannana) re-instated the "acquittal" and removed the above paragraph. — jesup 16:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Since the vandalization and edit-warring over Katana seems to have stopped finally, and since Jacknicholson is already permanently banned, the issue of whether Marshalbannana is or is not a sockpuppet may no longer be important to resolve. I believe the evidence strongly shows he was a sockpuppet, but with the indefinite banning of Jacknicholson this is probably the editor's new primary account. Note that the actions taken here on this page (self-acquittal, etc) are themselves problematic, however. — jesup 16:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Agree with last comment above. Mb and Jn do have many common interests and similar editing, so there actually would be noticeable evidence that they are the same person, but that is not crucial. Jacknicholson was indefinitely blocked for username, not for vandalism (though he had performed some vandalism). Therefore there is nothing wrong with coming back with a different username. Self-acquittal is problematic, but the backlog on this page is horrendous, possibly encouraging frustration. No action taken, closing. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]