Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FinkleEinhorn/Archive

12 March 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Note: SPI below was initially opened with Pjstar35 as the sockmaster. The case was moved to FinkleEinhorn later based on analysis at .—Bagumba (talk) 04:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Other two accounts suddenly appeared out of nowhere to repeat Pjstar35's arguments. Similar writing voice. Given Pjstar35's edit warring, personal attacks, and general refusal to accept consensus at Talk:Constantine (TV series), socking doesn't seem out of the question. If not WP:SOCK, definitely WP:MEAT. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Connecting Pjstar35 to FinkleEinhorn: Pjstar35 cited WP:Statusquo to support changing the status quo, which FinkleEinhorn referenced. Pjstar35 and FinkleEinhorn share the same misunderstanding of WP:Statusquo.  WP:Statusquo is pretty clearly worded, so it seems unlikely that two independent editors would arrive and the same misreading of it that goes against what WP:Statusquo actually says.  FinkleEinhorn is also an WP:SPA dedicated only to adding the Gorman citation (which PjStar35 was previously blocked for edit warring to include, and has attacked other editors for not supporting him for -- signs of a bad faith obsession over the Gorman citation).  The reason I bring this up is not to attack Pjstar35 as a person, but indicate that given his lack of interest in other areas of open cooperation, it becomes harder to assume open cooperation when it comes to sticking to the same account.
 * Connecting FinkleEinhorn to AceVPD: AceVPD claimed to have been adding material with no awareness of what was previously going on, but their edit to the article was completely identical to FinkleEinhorn's. They both refer to their support for inclusion as a vote.  Both FinkleEinhorn and AceVPD were adding their signatures to their posts after making those posts.  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "but their edit to the article was completely identical to FinkleEinhorn's." - yeah, when you click the "undo" button it does that. I'm sure you know how this stuff works so why would you even make that comment? I smell a fishing expedition. AceVPD (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * More connecting Pjstar35: Both tell outright lies about my actions toward Pjstar35, generally acting as though I'm out to get him for personal reasons, when all I have done is supported the citation he wished to add , advised him about site-wide policies (as seen on his talk page), and started this investigation. There is no way two separate individuals could have honestly and independently reached the paranoid conclusion that I have any personal issues with Pjstar35.  Ian.thomson (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

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

I can assure you that I am in no way using multiple account and I welcome the check. I find it ridiculous that the minute someone agrees with something that someone else may not agree with, they immediately jump to the conclusion that the original person must be using multiple accounts as if to say that no one in this world of billions of people could possibly agree with what I was saying. I am also insulted by the insinuation that I made personal attack on someone. I even pointed out that what I was saying wasn't a personal attack, it was simply a speculation as to the value of the existence of another individual. This whole matter of speculation being allowed or not allowed is very confusing when Wikipedia documentation says you can, some other say you can't no matter what Wikipedia says (which frankly makes no sense), and yet others say you can use speculation on Wikipedia, just not me personally ... even though it was not me directly that made the speculation in the original topic of discussion regarding Bill Gorman.

I also think that I may have to contact the NAACP on this matter as well since I am an openly gay black man, which isn't hard to find out about online, and I think that at least some of these attacks against me, especially from Ian Thomson and one or two others, are related to my being a gender challenged black man. The world needs to know about the types of people that Wikipedia allows to edit their pages and speak on their behalf. Pjstar35 (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment As a user involved in the discussion at Talk:Constantine (TV series), I would just like to state that I have not seen any user there personally attack Pjstar or anything remotely related to Pjstar's perceived reason of being attacked because they are "a gender challenged black man". All discussion was on the content, not the contributors. On to this matter, I agree with Ian.thomson's decision to create this SPI for the reasons they stated above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the first that Pjstar35 has said anything about his race to me, and it is a damn lie that I've attacked him, especially on the basis of race. Hell, I was one of the only editors to support the addition of the Gorman citation.  That alone makes me wonder if we're dealing with a troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Suggesting that I know this pjstar35 is ludicrous. I've been following the talk page and it seems to me that this Ian has some sort of grudge against pjstar35. pjstar35 has also made very good points on the talk page that seem to just get ignored.  I'm sure Ian will now say we're the same person because I commented on this but I only came here because I had a message on my own talk page telling me about this. Dude, you've got some issues you need to work out but I think you're going to need a professional for that. AceVPD (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Notice that both Pjstar35 and AceVPD assume I'm out to get Pjstar35, when I was the only regular editor to support the Gorman addition. Notice that they both have no qualms about personal attacks.  My only comments on the talk page are supporting the addition of the Gorman citation, arguing that it's allowable under WP:BALL, and announcing this investigation.  I find it really hard to believe that two people could come to the same delusion that I have some sort of grudge against Pjstar35 from those comments.  Ian.thomson (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You appear to find a lot of things "hard to believe" and you speak of delusion but maybe you should take a step back and look at yourself. The SPI Clerk has already said that there is insufficient evidence, as there should be, to link me to these other accounts that you are accusing me of being a part of so seriously, please just stop. Also, stop claiming that you supported me as if you had my back 100% the entire time.  Your filing of these false sock accusations only further shows your support of those opposing inclusion of Gorman's speculations and encourage others to immediately oppose me without actually reading, and listening to, my completely valid points in regard to the issue.Pjstar35 (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Insufficient evidence" does not mean "quit presenting evidence." You got your valid points from me.  Ian.thomson (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delusions of what you believe, or want, to be the case are in no way evidence of anything. You are simply making speculations that wouldn't hold up in a court of law and shouldn't hold any merit here on Wikipedia either. I welcome you to present any hard evidence supporting your case but I have yet to see this evidence and I am confident and adamant that there will be none.Pjstar35 (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - This discussion is about and only about sockpuppetry. Please, do not discuss other topics here (personal attacks, gender, NAACP, etc), as your posts may get deleted. Please, provide some evidence of your accusations. The best evidence are wp:diffs that show similarities between alleged master and sockpuppet.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  21:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - I'm endorsing the CU to compare FinkleEinhorn with AceVPD (see: and ), but not with Pjstar35. Evidence of Pjstar35 being connected is insufficient.   Vanjagenije   (talk)  22:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * FinkleEinhorn, AceVPD, and are ✅ matches to one another. Pjstar35 was not checked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Indef blocked and tagged socks AceVPD and JohnBobD. Pjstar35 is not suspected at this point. Sockmaster FinkleEinhorn inactive since March 11, so no reason to block with puppets already handled. Mark for close.—Bagumba (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)