Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GEORGIEGIBBONS/Archive

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | GEORGIEGIBBONS


GEORGIEGIBBONS

Report date January 4 2010, 13:41 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Mykee881211

He has been attempting to force people to remove the delete nomination on the zilog head page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mykee881211 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 4 January 2010 He is using my IP address —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mykee881211 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

The Mykee881211 account was created shortly after GEORGIEGIBBONS was accused of vandalism. As of this posting, most of Mykee881211's edits are related to GEORGIEGIBBONS. Both seem familiar enough with Wikipedia to navigate my user talk space[1] and follow my contributions,[2][3] yet also have similar issues with signing comments,[4][5] and starting AfD discussions.[6][7] Both share an unusual concern about Brazzers[8][9] and the M4V video file format.[10][11] Most significantly, Mykee881211 claims that GEORGIEGIBBONS is "stealing" Mykee881211's IP address.[12] The username Mykee881211 may be an impersonation of a user on the IGN message boards,[13] as GEORGIEGIBBONS has previously been witnessed pretending to be other people, such as Sega Forum members Elysium (deleted edit) and Sketch Style[14]. Dancter (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mykee881211 is a user on the IGN Boards who has recently been banned thanks to actions taken by GEORGIEGIBBONS. GEORGIEGIBBONS has recieved his 3rd ban from IGN within 7 days due to spamming and trolling. Xxxdmannxxx 17:05 GMT 4th January 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 17:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I certainly see the evidence supporting the claim that GEORGIEGIBBONS is sockpuppeting, but I'm not so sure about Myke881211. It seems to me that they're actually enemies of one another and are just dragging their conflict onto Wikipedia, though there are a couple of similarities between them, but there's no hard evidence to conclude they're one and the same. (KaySL) 17:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the checkuser request. I found the links GEORGIEGIBBONS used to create the Zilog head article to be informative of what types of behavior to be expected. I would post the links, but it seems that it has been deemed inappropriate to cite evidence from outside Wikipedia. Dancter (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: am I the only one seeing the similarities between GEORGIEGIBBONS, Myke881211 and Xxxdmannxxx? I was about to link to GEORGIEGIBBONS' userpage so people could take a look, but he just had it deleted under U1, and Mykee881211 is attempting to have his userpage deleted also correction, GEORGIEGIBBONS slapped an AfD notice on Mykee881211's userpage. (KaySL) 17:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. You were just the first to post about it. For any administrators, compare User:GEORGIEGIBBONS,User:Mykee881211, and User:Xxxdmannxxx Each page had consisted a short identification and description, a variation of "write on my talk page" featuring a link, and a cursory valediction. It's possible that they aren't the same person, but I think that the scrutiny is warranted. Dancter (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Xxxdmannxxx recreated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dancter/Archive 8, in the same way that GEORGIEGIBBONS and Myke881211 start their AfD discussions. Dancter (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[15] This is GEORGIEGIBBONS' page

That was not a very helpful edit, Xxxdmannxxx. KaySL (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GEORGIEGIBBONS has been banned from Sega Forum many times now that we had to impose an IP ban. He had returned with different aliases each time and he also emailed me and PM'd me on IGN for no reason at all. IGN does have a user named Mykee881211 but not a user named Xxxdmannxxx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clumsyorchid (talk • contribs) 17:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No offence intended, and I'm not jumping to any conclusions here, but we have an awful lot of support for the accused parties from newly registered accounts... KaySL (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am Clumsyorchid, Sega Forum admin and I am not supporting GEORGIEGIBBONS as he is returning to my forum with new aliases meaning he could be doing it again. I believe all 3 accounts are his. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clumsyorchid (talk • contribs) 17:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I was actually more curious as to your position on Mykee881211, though as Wuhwuzdat has said, it's largely irrelevant to this investigation. KaySL (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to ALL, whatever may have happened at IGN, or by private (non Wikipedia) email, is totally irrelevant to this investigation. What happened outside of Wikipedia, stays OFF OF WIKIPEDIA. Keep your IGN forum drama and blather on IGN. WuhWuzDat 17:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just banned somebody from Sega Forum named Xxxdmannxxx who's IP matches GEORGIEGIBBONS' IP address meaning they are the same but however Mykee881211 has a different IP address to both of them.Clumsyorchid (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Clumsyorchid[reply]

Xxxdmannxxx had referenced the term "zilog head" which GEORGIEGIBBONS was banned for and had created the Wikipedia page about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clumsyorchid (talk • contribs) 18:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to sound paranoid here, but evidence from outside Wikipedia is usually not accepted, and we would require hard evidence that you are the same Clumsyorchid from the Sega Forum website. Edit: would you care to explain why you've added a CSD U1 notice to GEORGIEGIBBON's userpage? Your request will be denied since it's someone else's userpage. KaySL (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[16], the link to my Facebook and my Sega Forum page link.[17] I am afraid I can't give you a link to my Administrator Control Panel as you would be restricted if you tried to access it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clumsyorchid (talk • contribs) 18:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added Clumsyorchid as yet another blatant sock, check his edits outside this AfD. 18:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
These links are already public knowledge; [18] for the Facebook page and the first result here: [19]. Additionally, you did not answer my question regarding trying to delete GEORGIEGIBBONS' userpage. KaySL (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GEORGIEGIBBON's page had been hacked by Xxxdmannxxx after it was deleted. The new version stated, "A sockpuppet" meaning it was for trolling purposes so I proposed a speedy delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clumsyorchid (talk • contribs) 18:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It hadn't been 'hacked', merely edited like any other Wikipedia page, but nevermind; since you've been added to the suspected sockpuppets list, an administrator with Checkuser privileges will easily determine whether you are who you say you are, or simply another sock. Thanks. KaySL (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem that the question of Mykee881211's and Clumsyorchid's identities has been answered [20]. WuhWuzDat 20:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reason to believe that Superfazar is also one of the now numerous sockpuppets of either GEORGIEGIBBONS and/or Mykee881211. If you'll take a look at User:Superfazar, you will see that same distinctive layout that almost all the socks have had on their userpages, and a look at his contributions reveals he only seems to have an interest in the articles nominated for deletion by GEORGIEGIBBONS (the debate on the Niko Bellic article)) and Mykee881211 (the Brazzers article). I seem to recall one of the socks also having had some involvement with another article that's now up for deletion, Comparison of Zero Knowledge Web Hosts. In addition to all this, he - like GEORGIEGIBBONS and Mykee881211 - seems to have a habit of PRODding non-article pages[21], removing CsD boilerplates[22], and adding inappropriate CsD tags[23]. I feel this is sufficient evidence to include him in the request for Checkuser scrutiny, therefore I'm adding his user to the suspected sockpuppets list. KaySL (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: B + C (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism and vote stacking affecting outcome)
Current status –   Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Dancter (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]
  •   Clerk endorsed I blocked one of the accounts for disruption, and another one listed here was hit by the autoblock. Definitely not a coincidence. Looking for confirmation to check the other ones. NW (Talk) 20:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
The following accounts are   Confirmed as being the same editor;

- Alison ❤ 04:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

  Clerk note: All accounts properly tagged. –MuZemike 17:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date February 19 2010, 19:50 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by IGetAllTheGirls

The Mykee881222 account is a reference of the Mykee881211 account that has been blocked as a puppet of GEORGIEGIBBONS. It is obvious that GEORGIEGIBBONS has returned. IGetAllTheGirls (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: CODE LETTER (Unknown code )
Current status –   Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by IGetAllTheGirls (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

  Clerk declined, pending a admin to block IGetAllTheGirls as an obvious sock of GEORGIEGIBBONS, SpitfireTally-ho! 19:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have any evidence IGetAllTheGirls (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Clerk note: blocked + tagged SpitfireTally-ho! 20:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date March 3 2010, 19:27 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by WikiDan61

ScampyLondoner (talk · contribs) has an editing pattern that close resembles RoboHomo (talk · contribs), a previously confirmed sock of GEORGIEGIBBONS (talk · contribs). He created an account and his first edit was to declare himself a vandalism patroller on his user page. 92.40.80.246 (talk · contribs) then vandalized my page and Scampy proceeded to fix it. (This was a similar pattern with RoboHomo, who created socks to vandalize pages so he could fix them, bolstering his own credibility as a vandalism patroller.) Also, the IP address is within the same subnet (92.80) used by GEORGIE in the past.

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims. If I reverted vandalism, it doesn't mean I vandalised your page and I did rush creating my user page but I can assure you I am not Mr Gibbons. ScampyLondoner (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I was GEORGIE, I would be writing shit all over Wikipedia like "ass cheek hair" and "zilog hed" but I'm not so I will now remove my name and IP from the list. DubstepKing2010 (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know who it is, its Oh Stylo (juice) who your looking for. Can I be let off now I have helped you? ScampyLondoner (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

This is my IP address used on an open proxy! If this guy is guilty, what happens to me? DubstepKing2010 (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. How did you magically find out about this SPI case? –MuZemike 20:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This GEORGIEGIBBONS guy has been spamming up internet forums, I just wanted to see if there were any hits on him and when I put in the name, this came up, thought I would have a read and I see my IP listed as a suspect. DubstepKing2010 (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Why am I a suspect when all I did was ask about the IP? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DubstepKing2010 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because GeorgieGibbons makes a habit of trying to mess the clerks around in SPI cases concerning him. Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 20:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not messing clerks about and I'm not him. I am now really pissed off about this and I am leaving...with my details removed from the investigation :@ DubstepKing2010 (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: B  + E (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status –   Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

  Clerk endorsed To check for more sleepers and for anymore underlying IPs or ranges. –MuZemike 19:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Confirmed ScampyLondoner (talk · contribs) == DubstepKing2010 (talk · contribs) == 92.40.80.246 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) == GEORGIEGIBBONS (talk · contribs).

  This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date May 3 2010, 15:21 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Shirik

Blocked under WP:DUCK. Creating the same deleted pages and even modified another user's page to say "I am georgiegibbons". It's been a few months since he popped up, so asking for a sleeper check, as sleepers have been found in the past.


Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

I have added Julian Mehlfeld per above as he wrote an edit [24] admitting to being GEORGIEGIBBONS and that Clumsyorchid, another GIBBONS sock, is actually the alias of the real Julian Mehlfeld (see the first GG SPI, where Clumsyorchid gives a link to a Facebook page) so this one passes the duck test. ToxicWasteGrounds 15:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status –   Self-endorsed by clerk for Checkuser attention.    Requested by Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

  Clerk endorsed Self endorsed for a sleeper check. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Administrator note Right, the filer (Julian Mehlfield) has been blocked as a sock. I'm pretty sure Brad is not Georgie. TNXMan 15:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  Clerk note: The above comment by User:Tnxman307 was in response to one of the suspected socks accusing User:Bradjamesbrown of being a sockpuppet (this comment has now been redacted from this case). --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Teenage Martyr (talk · contribs) As more disruption again on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dalejenkins – one of his favorite disruption places. –MuZemike 21:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... and another one: Todpod (talk · contribs). Same but on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brucejenner. –MuZemike 21:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
... and another one: User:Dr Rootinson. –MuZemike 21:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just assume that anyone who says he is georgie gibbons either should be blocked for telling the truth or should be blocked for lying. As far as scanning the IP range in question, we're talking a /16, basically, everyone who uses a Blackberry in Britain or something like that; though I have trouble distinguishing between Blackberry IPs and anonymous proxies, policy appears to be just whack-a-mole. There are several abusive sockpuppeteers on that range; Brucejenner and Georgie are just a couple. --jpgordon::==( o ) 00:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just about had it with this. If another sock comes by, then it should be instantly blocked. DO NOT report to SPI for any reason whatsoever. –MuZemike 16:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
19 July 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by De728631

Jamiecocops' user talk, Frostiesjamie's contributions. Note also the names, all of them containing a combination of cereals and "Jamie". Specialk seems to be the head puppetmaster and Cocopos has already blocked for vandalism, but Frosties is still around. De728631 (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

  Administrator note All users have already been blocked and tagged as ducks. I don't think this warrants a checkuser as the amount of abuse is fairly limited and easily dealt with. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds right to me. Marking as closed. TNXMan 20:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, repeatedly creating aimless SPI cases (which is what he's been doing) is disruption and that's exactly what checkuser is meant to prevent. Unfortunately, the only thing the check told me is that he's evading his block to write about lacrosse. --Deskana (talk) 20:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've marked for close now, as the check didn't turn up anything. TNXMan 02:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
29 July 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by De728631

A loudly quacking duck. See also his contributions. De728631 (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

  Administrator note Blocked and tagged. Please file under Jamiecocopops. TNXMan 18:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two accounts now blocked, can we get a sleeper check/ possible rangeblock? TNXMan 19:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No sleepers. --Deskana (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Marking for close. TNXMan 18:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13 August 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
We've got enough strangeness going on that I would just like to confirm that this post by Kww on commons is indeed the same Kww as me, even though I don't use SUL. I've provided text to Gimmetrow, and will monitor for Gimmetoo knowing what the text is.—Kww(talk) 05:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence submitted by Jack Merridew

See [25] and [26] (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)[reply]

@ 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)[reply]
@ 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@ Atama, 2: All I meant to imply there is that there were two swift declines, including a 'crat. The 'too account is not going to be unblocked without confirmation that it is 'trow's; absent that, the assumption is that it's an impersonator. If 'too == 'trow, what's the problem with clearing it up? Privately, if appropriate. this refusal to acknowledge via the bot account seems evasive. The ratio of drama to signal is way off, here.
Not surprised to see an onion layer was pealed-off revealing Jamie as Gibbons, who I have encountered. Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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[27], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@Jack - I understand and I agree. Let's let this be put to rest for sure either via CU or (better) by Gimmetrow confirming. Just saying that if this is indeed a sockpuppet, I'd really like to know how the heck they did it. :) -- Atama頭 03:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence submitted by MPEGLA

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

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)[reply]

Note: I am the same user as MPEGLA but I changed my name due to Wikipedia policies. Cyberthrone :) 18:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Oops. Silly me. I was too busy looking in the sock drawer, and forgot they had an owner. Thanks for pointing that out. Akerans (talk) 23:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The SPI was only created because some idiot (who turned out earlier today to be a long term sock) had faked an autoblock request just to fool admins. Like I said, I feel disgusted that one person is responsible for all of this. Cyberthrone :) 14:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  •   Clerk endorsed - NW (Talk) 17:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

I am very convinced that all these reported socks are the return of banned user User:GEORGIEGIBBONS. The IP ranges and types of usernames used exactly match his MO. –MuZemike 00:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is also very likely that Moutray2010 (talk · contribs) and all his socks are also him, but I haven't drawn a beat on underlying IPs, yet. The usernames fit his MO, however. –MuZemike 00:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Clerk note: I am not yet certain about the status of User:Gimmetoo. I will not go into detail here as private information is involved. –MuZemike 00:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Completed The breakfast boys Jamiecocopops (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Cookiecrispjamie (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) are   Confirmed as socks of each other and   Likely socks of GG. Please note that these were very obvious socks that would not ordinarily have warranted a checkuser. The rest of the accounts are completely unrelated to each other in any way, and none of them are GG socks.

In particular, Gimmetoo (talk · contribs) is not a sock and is exactly who he says he is; that is, an alternate account of Gimmetrow (talk · contribs). As such, I will be unblocking him forthwith. I am very, very disappointed in the degree of bad faith that has been shown here to a longtime contributor by so many experienced users. The Gimmetoo account was not only doing nothing wrong, it was actually following longstanding policy. Gimmetrow's only error was that he did not use his Gimmetrow account to confirm the fact of the alternate account. This was a reason for discussion, not a reason to block; ten minutes of contribution review would have made this clear. It is practically impossible for someone to so closely mimic another editor, particularly when that other editor has been around the whole time carrying out longterm commitments on the project. Gimmetoo, I apologize for the checks, but please be assured the results will remain confidential. Risker (talk) 06:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Grammar fix Risker (talk) 14:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A substantial portion of that disappointment should be shared with Gimmetrow, who's steadfast refusal to correct that "only error" after having it pointed out to him in talk pages, block messages, and e-mail is what engendered this CU. There remains no plausible explanation for that refusal, and that error has still not been corrected.—Kww(talk) 14:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kww,it's really important that *everyone* own their mistakes here. Mistakes are acceptable if people admit them and learn from them. In this case, the initial request is based on an altered unblock request by an obvious sock of a long-time problematic editor. Even if the alteration wasn't immediately identified, a cursory examination of contributions would have given no reason to think that the two accounts were related. That the word of an obvious disruptive sock counts more than that of an obvious quality contributor in the mind of some reflects poorly on this project. There was no ongoing disruption so there was no reason to skip immediately to blocking; nothing was being prevented here. I can think of a number of reasons why people lock-down their admin accounts, and we have to respect that the Gimmetrow account is not able to be used for editing at this time (for whatever private reason Gimme has for this). It would have been preferable if the edit confirming the link between the accounts had been made by the main account, but not even WP:SOCK specifies that it be done that way; and quite honestly, editors who contribute in good faith don't know anything about the anti-sock expectations of some admins. Several of those participating here have been working in SPI for quite a while, and perhaps you might want to give thought to the idea that "block first, ask questions later" doesn't really work when dealing with serious contributors rather than the disruptive ones you deal with most of the time. Perhaps it's a good time to stretch one's horizons a bit, as working in this area can really have a corrosive effect on users if it isn't tempered with work in more positive areas of the project. Risker (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Administrator note Well, let's sum up. The two Jamie accounts are blocked and tagged. Edmund from Cardiff is blocked indefinitely (and has their talk page disabled) for vandalism. Reading Risker's comments, it seems PapaDrom is unrelated, as is Gimmetoo. Both are currently unblocked. I don't see much else to do here, so I will mark for close. TNXMan 19:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

22 August 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Belovedfreak

Account just been created and is starting AFD discussions, User:Kingromance also just created, seemingly to back up User:KatyPerryCaliforniaGurls in those discussions. BelovedFreak 13:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so much for Twinkle. I actually meant to report this to AIV per WP:DUCK, so apologies.--BelovedFreak 13:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

please note that user:dalejenkins is the sockmaster. Rosebud2010 (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Wank wank wank.   Confirmed that these are the same:
  1. Rosebud2010 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  2. Kingromance (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  3. KatyPerryCaliforniaGurls (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Dalejenkins is stalejenkins, though. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  Administrator note Marking for close, although I'm not sure if this should be filed under Dalejenkins (as that was stale) or Rosebud 2010. TNXMan 17:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Clerk note: case originally opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KatyPerryCaliforniaGurls, archiving under GEORGIEGIBBONS (talk · contribs) since this is precisely his MO (we also know he was active when this case was ongoing). No point tagging. SpitfireTally-ho! 00:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

23 August 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Firecheetah

Duh! Firecheetah (talk) 10:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user has also created an Afd for Boba Fett: Overkill. Firecheetah (talk) 11:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

wuh? There must be some mistake I'm not KatyPerryCaliforniaGurls or GEORGIEGIBBONS nor have I ever heard of these 2 users. sinerely russellbrandcaliforniaboys —Preceding unsigned comment added by RussellBrandCaliforniaBoys (talk • contribs) 10:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not him/her i have known men to be named KatyPerry and women to be named georgie —Preceding unsigned comment added by RussellBrandCaliforniaBoys (talk • contribs) 11:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

  Administrator note Blocked and tagged. TNXMan 11:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Clerk declined Firecheetah (talk · contribs) also blocked now by Blurpeace as an obvious sock of GEORGIEGIBBONS, nothing further to do here. SpitfireTally-ho! 13:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this case was originally opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KatyPerryCaliforniaGurls. SpitfireTally-ho! 13:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

11 September 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Minisplicer

I know GG from Sega Forum and I know that GG had circulated the "zilog head" term across the forum in late 2009. Pvt James Ramirez' first edit was to write "zilog head" on his user page. Looking at some GG socks, he seems to choose usernames that resemble characters from video games, mostly First person shooters, such as Battlefield: Bad Company 2 and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. On IGN, GG has used alias such as Soap MacTavish, Vladimir Makarov and of course, Pvt. James Ramirez. I find this strange and I think something is up. Minisplicer (talk) 09:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And Ramirez has just vandalised the page. Minisplicer (talk) 09:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
James Ramirez MW2 is obviously the same person as PvtJR but the CU is still needed for any GG connection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minisplicer (talk • contribs) 09:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


الأول يمكن أن يكون أي شخص ، GEHORGEIGIBBONS جابت الجميع على هذا المنتدى مع مصطلح لذلك ليس هناك دليل مباشر انا جغ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvt James Ramirez (talk • contribs) 09:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a coincidence as we have the same name but it doesnt mean we are the same person. mw2 has millions of fans worldwideJames Ramirez MW2 (talk) 10:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Homie, Imma not GEORGIEG1BBONZ bruv az i dnt sho any simularaties wiv himCall of Duty: Nuclear Warfare (talk) 10:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
All done. TNXMan 13:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12 September 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Susan AndersonWP

Soap's edit pattern and created pages match GG's MO. Susan AndersonWP (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I didn't know I was supposed to file under GG. Susan AndersonWP (talk) 08:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

Feel free to run whatever scans you need as you will find I am not GEORGIEGIBBONS. CaptainSoapMacTavish (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

All done. TNXMan 14:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

15 September 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Wuhwuzdat

Yet another Soap/Mctavish named sock, blathering about "zilog head" WuhWuzDat 15:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

I didn't see any sleepers, although this account is   Confirmed. TNXMan 16:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

16 September 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Blueytwoshoes

The usual. Look at the userpage. Blueytwoshoes (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

All done. TNXMan 15:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

17 September 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by MrBMan2010

Probably not GG but the whole zilog business on the userpage seems strange, although this could just be coincidence. MrBMan2010 (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

zilog? I have no idea what you are on about. I just copy and paste random things to my userpage I see on WP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icopyandpastefromwp (talk • contribs) 17:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

All done. TNXMan 17:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

10 October 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Zoomerbug

Impersonation of MuZemike (talk · contribs) and going on about "zilog head" Zoomerbug (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
21 October 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Old Mr Gyro

Self-explanatory. Old Mr Gyro (talk) 16:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
10 December 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

I am an IP editor who made an account to report this (as IPs cannot create SPIs) so please forgive me if I cock-up. Anyhow, Starwars created an AFD for Girls (N-Dubz song) and immediately after, GaGa voted delete. Both also left welcome messages on each other's talk pages and they have the exact same edit summaries. Fits the class MO of deletionist sock, Dalejenkins. Setupknockdown (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Well, its just a coincidence we met here. Starwarsforceunleashed (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain why your userpage matches an older revision of Dale's? Setupknockdown (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Starwarsforceunleashed and GaGaManLady are   Confirmed as GEORGIEGIBBONS (talk · contribs). Blocked and tagged, and his underlying ranges have been blocked for 6 months. –MuZemike 21:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/GEORGIEGIBBONS/Archive&oldid=1138671123"