Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pnelnik/Archive

Evidence submitted by O Fenian
I believe Pnelnik is using a sockpuppet to try and create a false consensus at Talk:Gerry Adams, a discussion which both accounts are involved in, and it does not seem to be the first time either.

The Pnelnik account is the older one, and there was a week's break in editing beginning at 14:38, 22 October 2009. The following day Pma jones began editing, with his very first edits involving himself at Talk:Jesus in the same discussions that Pnelnik had been involved in (specifically Talk:Jesus/Archive 110 and Talk:Jesus/Archive_110). The Pnelnik account returned to editing on 29 October for one edit, then made this edit at 18:22, 5 November 2009, a mere 16 minutes after Pma jones made this edit to the same page. Although that post was in a different discussion section, they both participated in Talk:Thomas Aquinas. The Pnelnik did not edit from 6 November 2009 until 22 February 2010, when he reappeared to take part in the Gerry Adams discussion mentioned above. During that discussion Pma jones made this post where he seemingly forgets which sockpuppet he is using, as he says "I would suggest that both Pma Jones and O Fenian stop editing the lead" which is not really how you would expect him to refer to himself, unless he thought he was editing as Pnelnik. O Fenian (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The comments below seem quite strange to me. What is the old saying "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear"? So why is Pma jones worried about this investigation going ahead? Attempting to deflect your own wrongdoing by attacking me is a strategy doomed to failure. Unlike people who do have something to hide, I welcome any investigation into whether I am also BigDunc or Domer48. Since it was been established by a checkuser here that I am unrelated to BigDunc and here that Domer48 is unrelated to BigDunc, I know the results of any investigation will exonerate me but go right ahead and knock yourself out assembling a case. O Fenian (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
Bearing mind there are so very few discussions that both parties have taken part in, it would seem rather unwarranted to pursue this case further. If I go through O Fenian's contributions I see that he and Domer48 'fenian'  have both frequently make contributions to the same discussions and very often agree with each other and indeed with the recently retired BigDunc. But that's not enough evidence to make accusations of puppetry against them.

The accusation from O Fenian came after I wrote the following on the Gerry Adams discussion page:
 * As it stands now the article in general and indeed the lead, look like they have been written by the Sinn Fein PR department.
 * I don't think that all of O Fenian's recent edits have been helpful. For example, previously the article contained: Sinn Fein, which had close links to the IRA. That was followed by a supporting reference to The Independent article: Sinn Fein Faces Fines Over IRA links 20-Apr-2004.
 * O Fenian then removed the reference and mentioned: Revert. Misrepresentation of source,.

I think that I should apologise for that. Rereading it now, I think it lacks an assumption of good faith. It is perhaps more personal attack on O Fenian than is appropriate. So I'm happy to withdraw it. I would hope that future discussions will focus on the issues under consideration rather than editors going for each other.

I applaud O Fenian's diligent work helping to ensure that Sinn Fein is fairly treated in wikipedia articles and that anything negative that is written about them is thoroughly scrutinised. I wish him well. Tá súil agam go mbeadh ádh maith agat. Pma jones (talk) 10:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
There seems to be very little overlap in their edits compared to the number edits they've performed on a diversity of articles. One seems mostly interested in Christianity-related articles, while the other edits more articles about soccer. The youngest account is also still quite a bit older than the first discussion they were both involved in. There are also some style differences; for example: Pnelnik usually signs right after his messages, while Pma Jones tends to sign on a new line. Looks more like two people became involved in some of the same discussions and added those pages to their watchlists. Smocking (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Would be reasonable, but it ignores the actual evidence. Such as when Pma jones seemingly forgot which account he was using. It also neglects that Pnelnik had never edited the Gerry Adams talk page before, then turned up there to make his first edit in over three months to support Pma jones's position. Also when Pnelnik briefly stopped editing on 22 October 2009 Pma jones began editing the exact same talk pages, in some cases the same discussions. O Fenian (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've seen editors blocked for less. I've seen their unblock requests being rejected twice based on a lot less. In addition to a big song and dance being made. But unlike that editor, this editor here it must have the right POV. Editors who are used to this topic area, this is all very common, and editors who are not a wet day in the place and come here, sure what would they know?  -- Domer48 'fenian'  18:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I like to err on the side of caution with SPIs, especially for older accounts with a fair share of constructive edits, having once been on the receiving end of a frivolous SPI. But yes, I have to agree that talking to your own username is pretty damn suspicious. A short interval alone would not be unreasonable for people in the same timezone with an article in their watchlist, so I hadn't really looked into that. The two big, neatly interleaved flurries of activity on the other hand are pretty typical of socks. I seem to have mixed up the recent and early parts of their history pages, leading to the erroneous sentence that is now striked out. That first edit to the Jesus talk page where Pnelnik suddenly disappears during a big argument is then really the last straw. Perhaps their superficial style differences are just intentional. In what look a bit like mistakes, Pma jones also edited one soccer- and one tennis-related  article, two of Pnelnik's greatest editing interests. Smocking (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Having reviewed the evidence, they are quite clearly the same person. The sockpuppet has been blocked; if Pnelnik wishes to edit, he will have to use his main account, which has been blocked for two weeks for denying the sockpuppetry accusation. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 14:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)