Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tangrecia/Archive

02 October 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Tangrecia is a blocked account. There is essentially no visible edit history, but the user's Talk page makes it clear that they were blocked because the account was "mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes", and Tangrecia described the material as being about "an important player in international education and entertainment". This appears to directly describe the Pablito_Greco article currently under AFD. Tangrecia was blocked 15 February 2013, NickDimou was created exactly one month later on 15 March 2013. NickDimou's very first edit creating this article discusses Tangrecia in the text. That first edit created a substantial article with an infobox and advance format references and well developed article sections and subsections - the NickDimou account is clearly a new account of an experienced editor. NickDimou virtually single handedly created the wildly promotional and junk-sourced article Pablito_Greco, which is currently up for deletion. NickDimou's only has two kinds of edits outside of Pablito_Greco. One is to CITESPAM promotional copies of a garbage self-published itunes ebook from the Pablito_Greco article out to about a half dozen random articles. Here's one sample citespam inserted into the article for the NATION of Argentina. His only other edits outside the topic is a rapid burst of junk edits on September 28 and September 29, immediately after seeing that his article was up for deletion. This appears to be an attempt to manufacture some diversity in edit history. Most of those edits were undesirable (deleting sources with dead-links), although negative-value of those edits may have been a good-faith mistake in the rush to generate an edit history.

The NewYorkerMe account has no edits outside Pablito_Greco and Pablito_Greco-AfD. NewYorkerMe's first edit was this, adding a reference in the same elaborate format as the other references, adding yet another in a set of itunes selfpublished e-books written by the subject of the article, and updating all of the related references to remove "Tangrecia" as the publisher. This is a skilled first edit, identical to the distinctive style and content of NickDimou edits. 4 minutes later NewYorkerMe trivially bluelinked his name. His next edit added a sophisticated youtube reference, just like the other junk youtube references NickDimou put in the article. Looking at the Article history both of NewYorkerMe's edit summaries are 3-word all-lowercase ending in a period. NickDimou's edit summaries are 2-to-4 word all-lowercase ending in a period, with the same type of text. Notably they both use (added X.) as an edit summary. This diff indicates that NickDimou either lives in New York or is associated with New York, a rather striking coincidence with NewYorkerMe's name.After more than two weeks of inactivity, NewYorkerMe showed up to vote in the AfD exactly 24 hours after NickDimou posted there. NickDimou and NewYorkerMe both exhibit exceptional capabilities in their first edits, yet both consistently fail to sign their posts in WP:Articles_for_deletion/Pablito_Greco.

The checkuser is needed for two reasons. One, to prevent socking in an AfD. AfD closed as delete. Second, assuming all three accounts are confirmed to be linked, it may be appropriate to extend Tangrecia's block to these new accounts for continuing in the same wildly promotional SPA behavior. Alsee (talk) 07:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
. I'm endorsing a CU between the two puppets. Obviously, the alleged master is stale. Very few edits from NewYorker, although the flowery style (love and all) is similar. Also hard to believe that NewYorker is a scientist.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The following accounts are.
 * PhilKnight (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I've indeffed and tagged the two puppets and tagged the master. Because the CU result is likely and, more important, because no CU could be done against the master, I've tagged master and puppets as "suspected".--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)