Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pzrmd/Archive

Report date June 21 2009, 17:19 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Kingturtle

Pzrmd made an opposition !vote in Requests for adminship/Majorly 2. It was only Pzrmd's second edit. When confronted with this, Pzrmd stated "I am an experienced abandoning my old account and starting fresh...I can try to find a way to prove it if you need." I then made the following request on Pzrmd's talk page: "In Majorly's current RfA you show a willingness to prove that you are an experienced editor who is starting fresh with a new account. Can you please confirm to me (I am a Bureaucrat) via email the name of your retired account? If you are uncomfortable revealing this information to me, please email an active CheckUser about this situation and the name of your old account, and have that Checkuser email me a simple confirmation." Nothing ever came of that request, and then Majorly withdrawn his RfA pre-maturely, so I let the Pzrmd issue drop.

Later however, Pzrmd began endorsing summaries at Requests for comment/Docu. To make sure Pzrmd's old account was indeed inactive and not being used as a sockpuppet, I made another inquiry: "You are endorsing various summaries in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Docu; however, you still have not put to rest any concerns that your retired account is truly retired. Please notify me the name of your retired account or notify an active CheckUser and have that Checkuser email me a simple confirmation. Then we can put this issue to rest. Thank you." Since then I've been involved in email back-and-forths with Pzrmd, but Pzrmd refuses to tell me or any CheckUser what her/his old account name is. I am not concerned about Pzrmd's article edits as much as I am concerned when Pzrmd weighs in on !votes.

In my emails, I have tried to assure Pzrmd that her/his old account name will not be revealed publicly by any CheckUser. That such information would remain private, as long as the old account was indeed inactive. However, I am still met with resistance. Kingturtle (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This is very unexpected. First, how long does it take for CheckUser to be stale (and what it depends on in different situations)? And I care what CheckUsers think of me as well, as far as my old account goes, which Kingturtle didn't seem to get. I want a clean start, which is guaranteed in WP:SOCK as long as the user meets certain conditions. What if I were to admit that I were lying that I was experienced to get something like a head start? Is there a specific policy against that? Why don't we check every new user for sockpuppetry; there's no reason I cannot be treated like that. I feel a little cheated as well, because there is sensitive information I revealed to Kingturtle that I cannot reveal publicly which would help me in this investigation. I admitted I had another abandoned account, which I did not need to do. Kingturtle seems to trust me there, but not that my old account is not being used to gain support for votes or whatever. It would be silly of me to say I have an old account and at the same time use this one to gain support. Pzrmd (talk) 04:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC) (R. Baley) It's funny that you of all people came here. I would like you to recuse or whatever. Pzrmd (talk) 04:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
 * I admitted I had an old account. If I had a bad history or were sockpuppeteering I would obviously not do this. I want a clean start with everyone. Pzrmd (talk) 04:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I also have a request that this page be deleted if it has a positive outcome. Pzrmd (talk) 04:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

(R. Baley) I think it's absolutely loathsome that you are here, but whatever. I was willing to admit from the start that I was experienced, and you can say that I did by voting in his RfA. Pzrmd (talk) 04:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have emailed a bureaucrat that I'm pretty sure I can trust. Pzrmd (talk) 05:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I will take the word of any bureaucrat, who is free to email me (free of any specific details -I don't need them) at any time. I'm not trying to block your new start, I just want everything to be above board.  Thanks.  R. Baley (talk) 05:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Pzrmd should verify the old account to someone. . .and it needs to be an account clean of a block log (otherwise the accounts need to be connected). Editors are subject to scrutiny of their edits, or else they should be blocked. If there is no verifiable connection to a previous account, he/she still needs to be blocked. See, "Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project. . .". Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 04:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users
 * @ Pzrmd above. I will not recuse, you can creditably/verifiably connect your old account to the previous one, or otherwise you are too involved in the internal processes on this site to continue editing with the Pzrmd account.  You "admitted" to using a previous account because it was patently obvious to anyone who noticed when you immediately became involve in an RfA.  If you want a clean start (and I don't recommend subterfuge) you can't get involved in any old battles, if that's what you perceive is happening here.  Rest assured, I have no interest here (or anywhere else) except in the smooth collaborative effort in the editors who contribute to this site.  R. Baley (talk) 04:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

If this account is a disruptive sock should its comments and votes be struck, or removed, from discussions internal to this project? Cirt (talk) 11:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes...if. It has not yet been confirmed or refuted. Kingturtle (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Cirt (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * There is no CU request posted on this page - its not clear if that is intentional or not. Since there has been correspondence with checkusers already, according to the above, perhaps it would be best to ask them to either comment here or resolve the question off-wiki. Nathan  T 14:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, there has been zero contact with any CU in this matter thus far. Kingturtle (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I assumed based on some of those comments that there had been an exchange with CUs where Pzrmd had refused to acknowledge his prior history. Do you intend to request a CU on this case? Nathan  T 20:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was asking Pzrmd to disclose her/his old account name to a CU so it could be verified in private, but Pzrmd never did it. Yes, I would like a CU to look into this case. Kingturtle (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added the RFCU request. Based on my reading of the policy and what I recall of the relevant arbitration cases, without evidence of problematic conduct on the part of Pzrmd a check isn't clearly justified. While the policy forbids using alternate accounts to avoid scrutiny for actions that would reflect poorly on the primary account, or for engaging in misconduct that might lead to sanctions (bad-hand), nothing in the checkuser policy or WP:SOCK encourages performing a checkuser based solely on the suspicion that a new account is not, in fact, new. I can't justify endorsing a request without some additional evidence of disruptive behavior or the continuation of past disputes in such a way as to connect Pzrmd to his/her previous identity. Nathan  T 22:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My request is not based at all on a suspicion. Pzrmd's 2nd edit was an RfA !vote, and when confronted about it said he had retired his old account and that he would be happy to prove it. Kingturtle (talk) 02:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a reading of the above posts by Pzrmd is conclusive that this is not a new editor. As a follow up note, I have not received any email (from anyone other than Pzrmd) concerning this situation.  R. Baley (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Versageek looked into it. No other users on the IP. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 11:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * Can you elaborate? Kingturtle (talk) 13:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Checkuser evidence showed only on the IP address. There were no other users, so checkuser is unable to provide a link between this account and any other.  Peter Symonds ( talk ) 13:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)