Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Purplebackpack89/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

A perusal of the AfD pages as a whole and the editcompare report should suffice. If not, I'll go through and diff as needed.

After giving this some thought, the focus on details and argumentative repetition that Moon King has done on Articles_for_deletion/Suzuka Naval Arsenal as well as the language style is reminiscent of PBP's behavior on Articles_for_deletion/Ali_Ahmad_Fayyad and Articles_for_deletion/Alexander_Asiedu_(2nd_nomination), (articles I nominated for deletion). Similar behavior from PBP occurs on Articles_for_deletion/Octaviano_Tenorio (an AfD I had nothing to do with), and plenty of other areas of tendentiousness as well. From a preliminary examination of contribs for the last few days (since Moon King was created), there's a consistent gap where MK edits and PBP doesn't (and vice versa), but they edit in the same windows and in and around one another, even if the gap is only a few minutes to an hour. This would explain a lot about why a supposedly "new editor" would gravitate to my articles and then focus on a detail, because that is exactly what PBP has done in the past on several AfDs as well as on ANI, and we have an interaction history where he has been contentious. It would also explain why the argument given isn't policy-based, why there's so much WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and other behavioral patterns. There's enough of a correlation where I feel this is a "more likely than not" situation.

PBP already has several alternate accounts: User:Purplebackpackonthetrail, User:Purplebuttpack89,User:Purplebackpack98, User:Purplebackpack99, and User:Purplebackpack69, all of which are documented and are probably stale, but it shows that the user has a history of creating duplicate accounts. MSJapan (talk) 03:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * You know what? Close it.  I'm tired of dealing with these people and having obvious disruptive editing be ignored.  I'm not going to waste my time anymore.  If somebody would just CU the account as I requested, I wouldn't have to make guesses, but apparently I don't get that courtesy.  Somehow a new user managed to create the AfD in reverse order, but that's not strange at all.  You want to Boomerang me for not wanting to be harassed spuriously, go right ahead. This is why this sort of behavior continually goes on here at Wikipedia.  So, whoever is behind Moon King wins.  Congratulations! MSJapan (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Your argument is "there are two deletionists who edit during waking hours, Pacific Daylight Time. They must be the same person."  That's inherently weak.  It should be clear to anyone who even looks at the diffs (none of which were bothered to be provided) that Moon King and I are two different people.  Also, I have an alternate account for non-secure locations and doppelgangers to prevent impersonation that have never been used except to be established.  Both are accepted uses of alternate accounts.  Finally, WHY?  Just WHY?  If I wanted to disagree with you on an AfD, I'd have the courtesy to do so under my regular account.  I'm not blocked or anything, so I could have easily participated (but I didn't, because naval bases are not one of my areas of interest.  Look through my edits of the past year and see how few of them are related to naval bases).  And if I'd have participated, my argument would have been policy-based (just like it was in the AfDs you cite), so...yeah.  I can't help this is a revenge SPI for disagreements we've had in the past (chiefly about your mass AfDing of articles de-prodded by User:Kvng); if this fails, you may be due a BOOMERANG.  p  b  p  13:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I'll give you one opportunity to provide sufficiently persuasive diffs that demonstrate a connection between these two accounts. Otherwise, I will not just deny the CU request but close the case with no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Closing because of insufficient evidence, baseless, and disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)