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:224jeff6[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer
224jeff6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Ketchup krew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

STORMTRACKER 94 Go Sox! 14:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Only a few edits so far, one was to give 224jeff6 an award, and then lie about his health status, pretending to be his brother, to a few users he knew. Also, his sockpuppet added a note to a user talk page (diff 1 below) that defended his images of his "cars" that he allegedly owned. Some of these images were recently marked for deletion, and the user probably wanted them back. STORMTRACKER 94 Go Sox! 14:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

--Carerra 14:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Awards given to 224jeff6: That was my first day on ikipedia. I thought his user page was cool woth the navbar at the top, so I gave him a userpage barnstar. I thought that Image:Dodge copperhead.jpg was good so I gave him a photographers barnstar.
  2. Message left on The359's talkpage: He left a lot of photo copyright messages on 224jeff6's talkpage. I stated in the message that his messages were not needed because jeff was in the hospital. And I explained why they were copied from the internet. It as because jeff wasn't good with cameras, or digital cameras, at least.
  3. Message left on Carerra's talkpage: Carerra and jeff were friends on Wikipedia, so I breifly said what happened.
  4. How I learned to make custom signatures so fast(this point was made on my talk page by Carerra): This is probably the best evidence against me, in my opinion. But I simply copied and pasted from jeff's signature on his talk page. I changed the names to fit my username. I knew to do that because I read some of the earliest messages on jeff's talk page when he was learning to make signatures.I knew to do this because I used to design websites.
  5. Why my signature was the same as 224jeff6's(this point was made by Carerra on this page): See "How I Learned to make Custom Signatures so fast" That was because I copied and pasted the code from 224jeff6's signature, so obviously it looked the same as mine. After I changed my signature successfully, I changed the font from "impact" to "bauhaus 93". I was going to change the color, but then the sockpuppetry case came up.
  6. Why I didn't yet have a userpage(this point was brought up by Carerra on my talk page): This is not very good evidence of anything, but I still have a reason. It is because I'm not on very often so I didn't make one. I've signed up for someone to make one with me via the Trading Spaces program. I'm not on very often because I have a job. I own an auto body shop.
  7. Why I had not been welcomed yet (this point was also made by Carerra, on my talk page and this page): This provides evidence of nothing. 224jeff6 was not greeted until 5 days after the account was created.
  8. My real name (this was asked on my talk page by Carerra): This also won't provide evidence to support the case against me. I think it may have been possible evidence because 224jeff6's real name is Jeff, as stated in his username. My name is Nick, and I'm the oldest of 4 children. The order of the siblings in my family starts with me, Nick, and I'm 23. Like I said, I'm the oldest. I look after my little brother Jeff, a.k.a. 224jeff6. After me comes Jeff, who is 19. Jeff is friendly, yet naive. He is somewhat of a showoff, and he is also very paranoid and very gullible. Then comes the youngest ones, the twins, Ryan and Paul, who are both 18. They each have just moved out of our parents' house.

Both StormTracker94 and Carerra make excelent claims to support their case, and I do respect that. If any more evidence against me surfaces, I will respond to it here. -- Ketchup Krew Heinz 57! 18:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this user is in the hospital, why did he have time to leave this message on his user page after he was notified that his images were up for deletion? Certainly doesn't sound like someone who is going to the hospital to me. These accounts seem to serve little purpose on Wikipedia in regards to expanding or improving the Encyclopedia. They are, quite frankly, being used as social networking pages to "chat" with their buddies. 224jeff6 and Ketchup Krew seem to have identical editing patterns: Giving/receiving awards, signing guestbooks, signing up for Wikipedia programs which never come to fruition. Ketchup Krew had almost no edits to Wikipedia until his "brother" apparently ends up in a hospital, at which point Ketchup Krew suddenly becomes a regular editor, picking back up his conversations in a similar tone with User:Carerra. The359 (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also cannot help but find this edit to be blatantly distasteful if your story is true. A brother is in the hospital and you want him to live so you can inherit his cars? The359 (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This message was just before it happened. And I don't know what you mean about the inheritance. A living will means what will happen to his stuff if he slips into a coma, which happened at about 10p.m. last night, or something like that. And I also don't know what you mean by "picking back up his conversations in a similar tone with User:Carerra". I told Carerra what happened to Jeff, I tried to Start being friends with him, and then I was accused of sockpuppetry. Then when he made claims on my talkpage, I responded to them. I'm editing more now because I have some time off because of everything that's happening right now. Also, Jeff's and mine's editing patterns are alike because we are brothers. Like I said before, what kind of cruel person would make this stuff up? -- Ketchup Krew Heinz 57! 20:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If your brother is in the hospital, and as you describe, incapacitated, how did you know that I was leaving him messages on his talk page after he had "left" Wikipedia? You claim you came to Wikipedia to tell 224jeff6's friend, Carerra, about what had happened, yet your first message was actually to me, to tell me not to respond to his talk page anymore and to explain his uploading of copyrighted pictures under a false claim. In fact, you did not even message Carerra until 17 hours after you had messaged me. Why would the first thing you do on Wikipedia, supposedly after your brother is injured, be to try and explain some photographs to me when you really had no real knowledge of the situation.
I also cannot help but point out that Ketchup Krew is now searching out User Secret Pages, exactly the same thing 224jeff6 had done previously. The359 (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had known that The359 was leaving messages on 224jeff6's talk page because I looked at it. And the secret page I found was one I just stumbled upon. I was on penubag's userpage, and when I moved my mouse, I noticed a link, which was to his secret page. I did not claim that I came to Wikipedia to inform him of what happened. I was on Wikipedia before anything happened. And my first message was not to The359, but to 224jeff6, giving him 2 awards, which I explained on this page. I did not message Carerra until 17 hours after I messaged The359 because I had Internet troubles, since I'm using wireless Internet on a laptop. I do have real knowledge of the situation. It appears that The359 doesn't have complete knowledge of the sitation, since he says that I claimed my sole purpose of coming to Wikipedia was to inform Carerra, and that my first edit was to his talk page. Both of those claims are proven untrue by the content of this page. -- Ketchup Krew Heinz 57! 19:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I find one thing strange. The359 was the first to accuse 224jeff6 of sockpuppetry here on Jeff's talk page. Then, Stormtracker94, a completely different user who has never even had contact with The359, or at least not on user talk pages, brings up this case almost out of nowhere. I'm not making any accusations, I just find that a little bit strange. -- Ketchup Krew Heinz 57! 19:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, Ketchup Krew should be blocked for including personal information. Wikipedia is not the place to tell another user that your brother is in the hospital. And besides, if your brother got in the hospital, I don't think the first thought going through your mind would be "oh, lemme go create an account on wikipedia and quickly tell that stranger guy over there that he's in the hospital." DiligentTerrier and friends 16:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made the account BEFORE anything happened! I already said that on this page! I told User:The359 because I wanted to give a breif reason why the messages he left on User talk:224jeff6 were unneeded. And I told User:Carerra because Jeff and he were friends on Wikipedia. Gosh, this thing is getting annoying. -- Ketchup Krew Heinz 57! 18:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is also worth noting that Ketchup krew asked for help using the ((helpme)) template, something which is basically only mentioned in welcome messages. Ketchup krew never received a welcome message, and should never know about that template. However, 224jeff6 has used that template before. DiligentTerrier and friends 19:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, right here on Carerra's talkpage, User:Stormtracker94, the accuser, asked User:Carerra to comment on my sockpuppetry case so Stormtracker can "have a backup". And now Carerra has provided the most evidence against me. Also, Stormtracker left this on Carerra's talk page and claiming things when he had no proof they were actually true, like that Jeff "isn't hurt" and that Jeff "probably lied to Carerra as long as he knew him". This can't be acceptable, can it? And, yes, the ((helpme)) template is only mentioned in the welcome templates, but User:Carerra greeted me just before the sockpuppetry case started. And also, I want to know why I wasn't the first one to be notified about this case. Stormtracker94 started the case, then told Carerra before me, because I should've been notified before Carerra, when he is just a friend of the accuser, and I'm the accusee! Unlike Carerra, I'm actually involved in the case! It was unneccessary for him to even be notified AT ALL! -- Ketchup Krew Heinz 57! 20:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! You sure know a lot for a newbie! DiligentTerrier and friends 00:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, there needs to be some evidence that this user is causing a disruption of some kind. It is not against Wikipedia rules to have more than one account unless they are doing it for purposes of inflating votes, starting arguments, or otherwise being disruptive. I too find this user's stories to be a bit incredulous, but he's not putting it into an article. I recommend no action in this case as no sockpuppet rules have been broken. If the accuser has evidence to the contrary they should place it in the "evidence" block with diffs. — BQZip01 — talk 03:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before this began, I sumbitted to WP:AN that 224jeff6 was using his account for social networking, with little to no editing of Wikipedia articles. I would, at the very least, suggest that Ketchup Krew be warned that he should be editing Wikipedia more than he is trying to make a lovely User Page or create User boxes. The359 (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, you cannot talk about other (non-famous) people's private personal information on Wikipedia (like going to the hospital). However, I am afraid that Ketchup just slipped and basically gave himself away when he said that Carerra welcomed him, which he did only he welcomed the Jeff account and not the Ketchup account. Ketchup, I suggest you just plead guilty to the admins and hope you can settle for a temporary block, as supposed to a permanent block. If you continue fighting on, you will get permanently blocked. DiligentTerrier and friends 18:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, both users seem to be finding the same secret pages. And both users have a habit of inserting lines in between their comments. DiligentTerrier and friends 18:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have only found one secret page which I already explained. I already said why I said Jeff is in the hospital. And Carerra welcomed Ketchup Krew right here. And it wouldn't prove anything if it was verified Jeff owned those cars. I know a lot for a new user because I've done a little bit of reading in the tutorials section. But User:BQZip01 is right. No sockpuppet rules have been broken. Even though all of the users giving evidence have made good points, there is nothing that can verify that User:Ketchup krew is a sockpuppet. The only thing that there is actually concrete evidence of is me giving personal information, since I said Jeff was in the hospital. And Carerra asked this, but yes Jeff is still in the hospital, but is getting better. But even if that is personal information it doesn't fit Wikipedia's definition of "personal information" very well. Wikipedia's definition is "any non-public information about a living person that is factual in nature that would negatively impact his or her personal life if it were to become public." People on Wikipedia knowing he was in the hospital couldn't really affect his personal life at all. If I said why he was in the hospital, that would be different. But that's only because of the particular thing that it was. But anyway, BQZip01 is right that I I haven't caused any disruptions at all. It feels like this whole case is just going in circles, and we're not really getting anywhere with it. And I'm trying to make my userpage look good so I can look more professional, like I know what I'm doing when I edit, less beginnerish. I rcently haven't made many edits because this case is taking up most of my time I spend on Wikipedia. I'm just glad it'll be over in a few days, and I'm sure it's the same with everyone else involved. It seems like everyone is making a big deal about nothing. -- Ketchup Krew Heinz 57! 19:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't had a chance to read all of this but I like to point out that if the two are brothers, 224jeff6 could have helped his brother set up the account. If this were so, it would seem logical that the first brother would offer the second brother the HTML code for the signature. The HTML code for my signature was adapted form SorryGuy which was adapted from Pedro but all three of us are not the same person (at least I hope so). Also just because they never got a welcome message at the beginning doesn't mean much, some editors have been editing for years under an IP address as well as have been trained in HTML before using wikipedia. I personally never received a welcome message when I made my account back in April of 2006, but I still learn how to do some changing in HTML. Two brothers if raised similarly can (not always as with my brother an I) turn out with the same habits. This can also happen if the have the same teacher or mentor in the same subjects. Lastly, If two brothers were to share an apartment, there would be a great chance they would have the same IP address(If they don't, there is almost no bases in my opinion with my current understanding of IP address although I don't know everything) hope my ever so humble opinion helps--Pewwer42  Talk  20:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sockpuppet rules have been broken. What about the personal information one? You should not use Wikipedia to notify some stranger that your brother is in the hospital. And has anyone read your userpage? This whole time I've been getting the impression you both were kids or at least under 18 (and I think Jeff and/or Kecthup said that he was somewhere along the line). However, in your userpage (permanent link), you claim to drive a whole bunch of nice cars and own a body shop. Your entire userpage 'about me' stuff seems to be a hoax. DiligentTerrier and friends 00:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This whole thing started when I ran across pictures which 224jeff6 uploaded, in which he claimed he took pictures of cars he owned (A Lamborghini, a "Gemballa" Carrera GT, etc). However, they were all copyrighted pictures I was able to find through simple Google searches, and they were all deleted. Following 224jeff6's "leaving" of Wikipedia, quickly followed by his "accident", Ketchup Krew appeared and attempted to explain that 224jeff6 uploaded the pictures simply because he owned the cars, but was somehow unable to take pictures himself. How that excused taking someone else's pictures then claiming they're your own, and entering into public domain when uploading to Wikipedia, is beyond me...
224jeff6 also did not seem to actually know what the cars were that he was uploading, since the picture he claimed to upload of a "Gemballa Carrera GT" were in fact of a standard Porsche Carrera GT, and not the highly modified and quite different looking Gemballa Mirage. The359 (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at both pages and their claims. The problem is that no evidence (i.e. diffs) have been presented here. I think it is highly probable that these two users are one-in-the-same...but that doesn't prove anything. Users can start over if they wish, provided they are in good standing with Wikipedia. That he is or isn't telling lies is beside the point. Is he evading a block? Is he attempting to circumvent some policy? Are they attempting vote stacking? Are they disrupting any articles in the same manner? Near as I can tell, neither one is.
Both are apparently new users. As such they may not understand all of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines (especially picture use). Simply correct these errors in judgement and move on; there is no need for such a case in WP:SSP (perhaps WP:AIV would be a better venue should problems like these continue to occur). Their lack of ability to identify cars they say they own makes me believe they are just bragging/making up stories to inflate themselves, but of course that has never happened before. So what. This is the web. I pretty much don't believe anything anyone says online unless published in a reliable source...which is the whole point of referencing everything on Wikipedia: to make it more credible. If you were to believe everything you saw online, I'm pretty sure I'd have to tuck my ***** into my sock...
If they are just editing their user pages, so what, they aren't harming anything. If they are creating user boxes, they are improving the overall appearance of Wikipedia...good enough for me to keep them on board, even if I don't trust them implicitly. — BQZip01 — talk 04:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in regards to Ketchup Krew's claim: "And the secret page I found was one I just stumbled upon. I was on penubag's userpage, and when I moved my mouse, I noticed a link, which was to his secret page." Did you just stumble upon the other five or six you now have blazened across your user page?

It's amazing how your user page is quickly becoming almost identical to 224jeff6's user page. Seriously, WP:DUCK. The359 (talk) 03:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean "mine and Jeff's pages are almost identical". They're not. Mine is more organized. And I found those other secret pages because User:penubag explained how to find them on his secret page. And if Dilligent Terrier doesn't believe my "About me" section, fine, that's his opinion, but that's no evidence. Sockpuppetry cases, as well as any cases, are based on facts. Concrete, solid, proven facts. If something "seems to be a hoax", that proves nothing. If people want to prove I'm a sock puppet, opinions and interpretations and inferals will get you nowhere and serve no purpose. Sure, you may have suspicions, but if you want to make a real case, you need to back yourself up with facts. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and I respect your opinions and points of view. But the original evidence Stormtracker94 formed this case on may spark suspicions, but that's it. I think Stormtracker had presented a weak case, and he realized it, and that's why he's made no further claims after he created the case. But most of the evidence is just interpretations, and this is the place for facts, not opinions. -- Ketchup Krew Heinz 57! 21:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the Duck Test that The359 mentioned is named after the aphorism "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck....". It's probably a duck. Appearances can be very misleading, and Ketchup krew appearing to be a sockpuppet of 224jeff6 is no exception. And all of the accusers and people that are providingg evidence against me are not exactly saints themselves. I'm not saying that I am, but I do have proof. Like this. Carerra was given a final warning for personal attacks for this. That was the first one. And the reporter of that, Dilligent Terrier, is not much better. Two personal attacks is enough for a permanent ban, and Dilligent Terrier has involuntarily admitted to letting Carerra slide for two personal attacks. What a coincidence! Wait, coincidence? I think not! On Terrier's talk page, dscussing being reported for personal attacks, Carerra said this, admitting to this (which was unsigned). But then Terrier responded with this, saying he let Carerra off because he was "becoming nicer". Also, Terrier said this on his talk page as a message for Carerra concerning this. Terrier sounds like he noticed a personal attack made by Carerra, yet made no effort to take action. Carerra has actually done something wrong, and I'm the one being savagely attacked by others' words about how I'm breaking sockpuppet rules on Wikipedia. -- Ketchup Krew Heinz 57! 22:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a court of law. Evidence has been provided for others to judge on and offer their own opinions, which is exactly what we are here for. We do not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. And the past actions of other users are not under scrutiny here, so I'd suggest you worry less about the actions of users completely outside of this case. The359 (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know this isn't a court of law, but it is similar. But a LOT of people are like me, and some of the people judging this might think like me, about needing enough to prove something. And I included the wrongdoings of accusers, not users completely outside of this case, but accusers to prove that I'm not even the worst person involved in this. I've not even broken any sockpuppet rules, when some accusers (Carerra) are more than qualified for a permanent ban. It's a little bit hippicritical, don't you think, that other users accusing me of sockpuppetry should be accusing themselves for even worse things? On the other hand, you have a clean record, The359. And like BQZip01 said, if I'm making userboxes, I'm improving the overall appearance of Wikipedia. So I'm actually contributing to Wikipedia, just not as much to the encyclopedia part. -- Ketchup Krew Heinz 57! 22:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Ketchup Krew should be blocked anyway for not making any useful edits. Now why do you have to bring personal attacks into this. That has nothing to do with you or the case. You need a final, solid piece of evidence that will convince everybody that you are not a sockpuppet. You also need to start editing the mainspace. My personal attacks were not meant to be offensive and I have already apologized many times. Crittermations is my neighbor and best friend and I was just talking with him and we were joking around about it. That was none of your business anyway. This is a sockpuppetry case not the Supreme Court so get used to it. --Carerracarerra 19:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC) And one more thing, he is just making userboxes so he can stay on. He hasn't edited any real articles. He should just click on random article and start editing. I don't like social networks and that is one reason I join Wikipedia. His page might just become one. Userboxes are decoration puposes only and are of no use to the general public. --Carerracarerra 19:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "I think Ketchup Krew should be blocked anyway for not making any useful edits." That is not a criteria of WP:SOCK. If he violated another wikipedia policy/guideline, else bring it to the appropriate forum.
  • "You need a final, solid piece of evidence that will convince everybody that you are not a sockpuppet." Quite to the contrary. The person presenting this case needs to provide such evidence. It is near impossible to prove a negative (especially online) and is not a requirement in this forum.
  • "...we were joking around about it. That was none of your business anyway." If you are posting online in Wikipedia, it is indeed everyone's business, and you made it so by posting here. If you want a private chat room, please go find one elsewhere.
  • "He is just making userboxes so he can stay on." How does this violate any Wikipedia guideline/policy? I know people who edit 1-2 times per YEAR. Time between edits or your personal, subjective analysis of the quality of their contributions is not a reason to block anyone.
  • "I don't like social networks and that is one reason I join Wikipedia." You don't like social networks and you join a worldwide group? Little confusing logic there.
  • "His page might just become [a social network]" If it does, bring it up then, but blocking someone because of something that may or may not happen in the future is a bit extreme, unless you are psychic...
  • "Userboxes are decoration puposes only and are of no use to the general public." Actually they can be far more useful than that (such as a common box that all members of a group have so you can identify them). They can also be used to indicate who is an admin. Who likes the same things you do (and might be an expert in a subject area). Etc. Again, this isn't a criteria for blocking in WP:SOCK. — BQZip01 — talk 01:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

It's pretty obvious these are the same people. One of the most convincing things is the edit 224jeff6 made after he became sick and was in the hospital. Blocks on editing alone here are enough. As it's clear 224jeff6 has been abandoned, I've blocked and tagged it indef with Ketchup krew as the master and blocked KK for one week for disruptive editing, leaving a note on his page that he learn policies during this time and abide by them. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More