Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jacobga/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jacobga

06 August 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Very odd barnstar activity - the user The.thanker (with a very similar username format to The.aviation.expert and created a day after The.aviation.expert) thanked The.aviation.expert for "taking photograph at manchester airport," which just seems like odd activity. Furthermore, this user's activity is suspicious, creating an RfA soon after creating the account. A CU check could possibly uncover that this is a sock of another user. Logan Talk Contributions 02:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Looks like the fact The.aviation.expert is requesting a Autoblock unblock here would seem to confirm the link which he did deny. Mtking (edits) 06:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jacobga Mtking (edits) 08:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobga is clearly the sockmaster in this. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 08:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
06 August 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Jacobga was blocked for disruptive editing, and the block was extended for sockpuppetry when he created The.local.editor. Now that both accounts are blocked, he has created his latest account The.aviation.expert and, as evidenced by his contributions to Crownpoint North Retail Park has learned nothing and is carrying on the same disruptive edit pattern. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 08:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC) Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 08:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I just added The.thanker to the list for completeness, although that account has already been blocked. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 08:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also added The.aircraft.expert which I suggest is permanently blocked if the user is now going to move forward with just one account, and back the idea of a checkuser to weed out any others. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 09:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

I closed my other accounts with the new start page and used this, I thought by putting that notice it ment that you were not sockpuppetrying or so I was told. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The.aviation.expert (talk • contribs) 08:30, 6 August 2011

Also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The.aviation.expert, think it may be worth a Checkuser here to see if there are any more accounts about. Mtking (edits) 08:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Worm That Turned's comment below, I think all but Jacobga should be indef'ed and if he wishes to choose to use another account then let him requested it through that one, however that might be an abuse of Wikipedia:Clean start. Mtking (edits) 08:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no other accouts User:Aviation.expert 15:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but a checkuser will check to confirm that anyway. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have just remembered I have had an account in the past before Jacobga witch I had forgot the password of it was seskadog User:Aviation.expert 08:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

I have blocked User:the.aviation.expert per WP:DUCK and his/her admission above. My first sock puppet block, and I've WP:AGF'd regarding the length, assuming that he/she will understand my block notice - I'd appreciate a little feedback. WormTT · (talk) 08:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a confirmed sockpuppet account (as opposed to sockmaster) I think that protocol is a permanent block. I may be wrong of course. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 08:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand that, and would be happy with changing the block length - as I said, I'm pretty new to this! WormTT · (talk) 09:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, it might be against protocol, but since we've actually got him talking and given the timescales involved - I'm prepared to WP:IAR and allow him to move to User:the.aviation.expert. I've indefblocked Jacobga, and asked him to put a note from that account confirming that he wishes to rename to User:the.aviation.expert and that he understands that he's limited to one account. Hopefully, we can get a productive editor out of this... I just hope he's worth it :) WormTT · (talk) 09:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
23 July 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

This is an old account, I did let admins know before I had this account however no removal AviationExpert ✈ (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

I don't understand why you're opening an SPI on yourself, regarding an account that hasn't edited since 2007. If it's important to you that you acknowledge the existence (years ago) of an earlier account, why not just mention it on your own userpage? Also I don't understand what "however no removal" means.

Suggest this be closed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

/Hello!

I would like the account forwarding as on the Jacobga if possible

Thanks AviationExpert ✈ (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you would like User:Seskadog to redirect to User:The.aviation.expert, so that if anyone clicks on the first, they end up at the second? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please :) AviationExpert ✈ (talk) 09:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jacobga/Archive&oldid=1138672705"