Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pkbwcgs/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

See Deletion review/Log/2017 February 15 for more information. In a nutshell, this new user nominated the aforementioned article for deletion, in their first (and only) edits so far. The article's creator, and other participants in the subsequent deletion review, have raised suspicions that this account may be a sockpuppet, though it is unknown who the master could be. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As per the discussion below, I do now have some diffs to show that this user may be a sock of . Both users seem to have been nominating articles for deletion when they first signed up. As i said at DRV, the fact the user failed to notify me makes it highly suspicious that this account may be a sock. Anyway, here are the diffs when both users nominated an article for deletion. Neither left an edit summary which makes me a little more suspicious.   and .  Class 455  ( talk |stand clear of the doors!)  21:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' Pinging, the article's creator, as he may know more information about this case. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I suspect this user may be a sock as the first thing they did when they signed up was nominate an article which I had created some time ago for deletion. I have been working in the vandal department for some time, which means I have got a number of editors blocked as well as some SPI cases, most notably Profile101, so this could be someone who only signed up to "get revenge on me". The fact that they secretly created an AFD without anyone catching the attention of it (adding the AfD notice without an edit summary) makes it highly suspicious that this account is a sock, I am not sure of who the master could be, however I have a slight feeling that it could likely be, (blocked indefinitely after taking him to ANI) as when this editor first signed up, they were nominating various pages for deletion, after comparing the contributions, using no edit summary like this user did, but I'm not sure. Class 455  ( talk |stand clear of the doors!)  10:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I currently am unable to as I am away from home (so I'm using my phone), but I will be able to provide diffs that makes me suspect the above sock master that I've linked could have something to do with this account  when I get home in a few hours.  Class 455  ( talk |stand clear of the doors!)  11:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Also pinging who also suggested to open an SPI.  Class 455  ( talk |stand clear of the doors!)  11:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That was actually ; I'm certain this is someone's sock, but I suspected this would be treated as a fishing expedition and declined. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC).
 * For my part, I want to express my appreciation for at least bringing this to the attention of the SPI team here. Sometimes they know things that aren't obvious, or over time may see patterns. A similar thing happened to me in 2011, at Articles_for_deletion/The_Northern_Standard.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Twinkle apparently didn't allow me to post this SPI case with Ascar123 as a puppet since I didn't specify a master, so I clicked yes when I was given the prompt to list the case with Ascar123 as the master. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * (sorta) As an editor who has encountered user:Pkbwcgs before, I can see it is too early to tell, as the user has just created two edits. However, the nomination is indeed against which was involved (along with myself) in the matters of the aforementioned. Pinging  for his input, if interested.  Nördic   Nightfury  10:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This doesn't really look like Pkbwcgs to me. He had better-written reasons for his AfD's, and he at least knew to transclude them to the daily log. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It isn't obvious who the sock master is, but I only suspected it could be Pkbwcgs, as he was the only editor I had reported who knew how to create an AFD. And the fact that I was the only editor targeted makes this suspicious. Having said that, I have reported many editors for vandalism and addition of unsourced content, as well as having pages deleted for notability. I wouldn't rule out the fact that he "could" have changed his style of editing so that he could not be caught, and this is why it's very hard to collect more evidence, as nominating my article for deletion was the only thing the sock did. Only someone who knows what sock puppetry is would do that. The sock seemed to know what the notability policy is, and I had nominated one of Pkbwcgs's articles, Woodcote Green Garden Centre for deletion (the AFD can be found here) for notability reasons. The sock account also seemed to know how to sign comments, which the majority of new editors do not know how to do unless you leave them a note. Class 455  ( talk |stand clear of the doors!)  18:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I do appreciate your concern, however WP:NOTFISHING states that it is not fishing to check a user if there is reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry. Surely the suspicion of Sockpuppetry shown here and at the DRV should fulfill this criteria, shouldn't it? Also, which logs are you referring to?  Class 455  ( talk |stand clear of the doors!)  20:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * In any case, if this case is closed without an action, I will not mind. It wouldn't matter anyway since the account of concern appears to be a throwaway and blocking it (if that happened) wouldn't make a difference. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * True, especially since the account has made no further edits. I'd still like to know if any master was behind this account who deliberately managed to get an article I created deleted without any notice apart from the AfD discussion. (the DRV consensus however looks like it will be going for a relist).   Class 455  ( talk |stand clear of the doors!)  00:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - You've given me nothing to work with. For starters, please present a connection between two editors, based on log/edit history. You've listed one account and written why you think it's a sockpuppet, but that's not convincing enough for a CU without more evidence.  I'll hold this for a few days until you can present more information.  QEDK  ( 愛 ) 09:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand that you think the account's a sockpuppet but you have to give me pointers to links, links which prove that their behaviour is identical to another account. What you're saying can have many implications, any user can make an account for any purpose, it doesn't prove that they're sockpuppets. -- QEDK ( 愛 ) 11:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * First off, this case has no suspected sockpuppets... and you think that the account you've made a SPI case for as a sockmaster is a sockpuppet of an unknown master. Can you fix that first? -- QEDK ( 愛 ) 11:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's okay, as I said, we can hold this case for a while. Also, can you reply in the above section, please! -- QEDK ( 愛 ) 11:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's because you're not supposed to submit a case like that in the first place. Also, can you reply in the above section, please? -- QEDK ( 愛 ) 14:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This sock does not really match Pkbwcgs MO, first, Pkbwcgs made some pretty blatant vandalism edits, furthermore, they did not start with AfD (like this user). As I proceeded, if we compare AfDs, Pkbwcgs was much clearer with the procedure and made valid points at times. We do not have Ascar123 on that.
 * Unless you are able to supply diffs with concrete evidence (or links to logs), I will have to close this case. -- QEDK ( 愛 ) 17:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * By logs, I mean user logs, as in links in account creation, block timings, etc. NOTFISHING states that you need credible evidence for CU, but all we have here is merely conjecture. In light of the lack of evidence, I will be closing this case in a while. Again, I'm sorry but to put it blatantly, while what you say has some percentage of turning out to be true, just opening an AfD as first edit doesn't imply in any manner that the user is a sockpuppet. At best, it's an assuming bad faith allegation. -- QEDK ( 愛 ) 06:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)