Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CanadianBBQ/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

CanadianBBQ makes articles about non-notable subjects. These tend to get deleted or turned into drafts. There may be promotional intent here. They created orphan article Harold Eric about a non-notable actor (which I have put up for AfD). The article refers to the subject by his first name throughout, suggesting familiarity. About two hours later new user Derekbeagle is created and in less than an hour starts copyediting the article. The similarity in style and the timing are suspicious as are Derekbeagle's wiki skills for a brand new user and their complete lack of interest in editing any other articles, making them an SPA for an incredibly obscure subject. I am not sure if this is sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry but I'm pretty sure that there is something odd going on here in terms of both collusion and promotion/COI. How likely is a genuine new user to to find a very recently created orphaned article and start copyediting it to the exclusion of anything else while the original author seemingly steps back? I'm requesting a checkuser as it is possible that CanadianBBQ is not the ultimate sockmaster. They also turned up a few months ago displaying more wiki skill than a typical genuine new user. DanielRigal (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I am not sure if he wants to add anything here (He certainly is not under any obligation to do so) but Derekbeagle has made statements at Articles for deletion/Harold Eric which might be considered relevant. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Yes, I will include a comment.

The user DanielRigal initiated a deletion form for an article CanadianBBQ created, and which I contributed to. After substantial back and forth regarding the validity and merits of the article, which is still ongoing, DanielRigal opened this Sockpuppet investigation.

The SPI clerk will undoubtedly determine that there are no duplicate accounts or any wrongdoing whatsoever. I have no connection to, nor any relationship with CanadianBBQ. While I respect the time and energy that DanielRigal dedicates toward keeping Wikipedia the wonderful database that it is, he has, unfortunately, gotten this one very, very wrong.

Based on DanielRigal's revision history on the article in question (and based on his determination to see it deleted), I looked at his profile and saw that he has a pattern of taking down CanadianBBQ's articles and suggesting them for deletion. On the page he himself linked, DanielRigal stated, "I did indeed discover this article because I had already noticed that its original creator had made some misguided, possibly promotional, articles and I was checking up on what else they had done to see if there was a general pattern there." In other words, DanielRigal sought out an opportunity to delete a user's articles, and when I - a completely different user - defended the merits and validity of the article in question, he accused me of being a sockpuppet.

Simply, per Wikipedia policies, I began debating the merits and validity of the article in question, and DanielRigal's response was to launch this claim, which I find to be very disappointing considering that there is absolutely no wrongdoing here. --Derekbeagle (talk) 01:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I've sent some private evidence to the paid-en-wp email address, which I think may be of interest. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I would be more than happy to send along all of the information I know/have directly to an administrator, but I am very tired of humoring this unwarranted witch hunt that these two particular users have conducted on public pages against me. I fully understand the importance of upholding Wikipedia standards; however, these users have leveled accusation after accusation, despite my only goal of facilitating an open discussion on a single article's deletion page, and one has even slandered the subject of the article on this talk page by making unfounded accusations about them, ultimately accusing the subject of the article of paying for the creation of the page.


 * This article was not paid for by any party, despite this other user's incessant insinuations that such is the case. I cannot speak for the user CanadianBBQ's history, as I have absolutely no business relationship with CanadianBBQ, nor do I know them on any personal level. These individuals seem hellbent on finding wrongdoing where there is none (at least on my end, as I cannot speak for CanadianBBQ given the fact that I have no relationship with them).


 * I would like to request that this investigation finally be concluded, as I simply do not have the time to continue this continual back and forth that has been going on as a result of these two users since October 20th. I have stated my beliefs on the article deletion page, and that is now up for debate and dialogue, as Wikipedia was designed. If the article is deleted, then that shall be the proper outcome deemed by the editor community. Nothing I have done has been inappropriate by any means, and I refuse to continue humoring these users' self-perpetuating quest to find fault with me, where no fault exists. I have nothing further to add. --Derekbeagle (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ❌.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, though CanadianBBQ = --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 03:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am pretty confident that CanadianBBQ is UPE, and so have blocked them for UPE, blocked the sleeper as a sock, and tagged both. Before we close this SPI, I'd like to hear a little more from about this "unsolicited email" - this sounds a lot like canvassing, so I would like to know more about how you were brought here. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , FWIW, it's clear that Derekbeagle is a sock of somebody, based on their level of knowledge of our procedures. And clearly UPE.  I also note they uploaded co:File:Harold Eric.jpg.  I'd be comfortable blocking them as UPE, but you're already into this, so I'll leave it to you. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am an administrator. Please send it to me using Special:EmailUser/GeneralNotability. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I have received an email from Derekbeagle explaining the situation and have also been told the gist of the IP editor's email to the paid list. Based on the information available to me, Derekbeagle is not a sock. CanadianBBQ appears to be an undisclosed paid editor, though I cannot say with certainty whether any particular article was paid for. I am closing this without further action and will let the AfD run its course. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)