Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tencl.jakub/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I believe that the two accounts (and most likely the IP) are being controlled by the same person. This is due to their interactions on Draft:Jakub Tencl.
 * Suspected sockmaster account Tencl.jakub was created on the 18th September 2017 (log). The account submitted a draft under the title of Draft:Tenčl, Jakub at some point in early October (approximating based on rejections at AfC from the notices placed on their talk page, as this draft is currently deleted under G13). The account was dormant from 7th October 2017 after their draft was declined at AfC (from what I can see from non-deleted contribs). The account stops being dormant with one edit to Acceptance on the 23 March 2019 (diff). The account's latest edit was to the new draft Draft:Jakub Tencl (diff).
 * Suspected sockpuppet account DanDvo created their account on the 30th March 2019 (log). The account then creates the draft in question at 17:36 on the 20th of April 2019 (log). The creation of pretty much a fully expanded draft (with infobox, image, etc.) was their first edit (diff). Their only edits have been to this draft.
 * Suspected sockpuppet IP's first edit was about an hour after the last edit to the draft by the suspected sockmaster and about 2 and a half hours after the draft was created (contribs). Their first edit was after I declined the draft for the first time. Their only edits have been to this draft.

DanDvo creates the draft and within 45 mins submits the draft for reviewing by AfC (creation at 17:36 to submission at 18:15). I do some cleaning and then decline the draft leaving a note for re-improvement around 30 mins later (first edit at 18:47 and last edit to decline at 18:51). Just over an hour later after my first decline the IP adds citations where I had marked "Citation needed" (this is what I had advised the suspected sockpuppet to do after declining and the comment was present at the top of the draft), then adds wikiquote links (diff). 7 mins later the suspected sockpuppet resubmits the draft (diff) without making any other edits to the draft. The next day I re-review the draft, I decided to accept it (then remove some of the spammy text), but later changed my mind and unaccepted the draft around 15 mins after accepting as it was further from the standards needed for acceptance than I had thought (entirely my mistake for not checking properly). Around an hour after I had declined the draft for the second time (I had submitted as the suspected sockpuppet and then declined it, so they could be notified about the second decline) (declining diff), the suspected sockpuppet added more sources and an extra section (diff), then a minute later resubmitted the draft (diff). I then 5 mins later, removed a few of the added sources as they referenced a wiki (the suspected sockpuppet had used a uploaded picture by the suspected sockmaster on commons as a citation). I didn't, however, decline the draft. Only about 10 mins after my edits the suspected sockmaster Tencl.jakub makes their only edit (diff) which removes the two bullet points I had marked with cn (after removing the commons sources). The IP then undoes the suspected sockmaster's edit (diff) 30 mins later, but then a minute later performs the same removal (diff). The IP then changes the page number on one of the refs (diff). This is the last edit to the page to date.

First to connect the suspected sockpuppet account and the suspected sockpuppet account:
 * In the suspected sockmasters edit on Acceptance (diff), the account adds a ref with information. The reference is coded with the wikicode . Interestingly enough in the suspected sockpuppet account's edit to the draft (diff), they add . I can say that both these references are very similar in terms of wikicode generated, so the data entered into Visual edit must have been also very similar. Both refs use exactly the same title, same URL (even though that URL is a redirect), both wrap the location in a single square bracket (among other things). One difference is that the second ref does not split the name into "first" and "last", but only uses "last". However, both use commas at the end of the last and first name of the author. This is something which the suspected sockpuppet does in most of the other refs in this edit and other edits. Both edits were done through Visual edit. I tested on my sandbox that the "reference filler" in Visual edit did not give similar wikicode on my sandbox (diff). The resulting wikicode was . Notice how the URL had been replaced with the redirect target (which was not the case in the examples above) and it did not "fill" the reference the way the examples above were "filled". This shows that the way both accounts "filled" the ref was done in the same and unique way, strongly suggesting that the accounts are linked.
 * An even bigger red flag, is that the suspected sockmaster uploads the images on commons, which are then used by the suspected sockpuppet as references on an edit to the draft only 7 mins later. See commons diff at 19:58 which was the first of three images uploaded. The last upload of an image was at 20:05, so there was enough time to log out and make the edit to the draft at 20:12. I would say that it would be almost impossible for an unrelated account to see the images in less than 7 mins and then write a large edit to the draft. The suspected sockmaster would have had to uploaded the images, as they needed to release under CC 4.0 under an account which seems to be the person written about in the draft (based on username). Then, if related, they wouldn't wanted to have edited the draft using this account (so not to raise suspicion), so they would have logged back into their sockpuppet account to make the edit.
 * The suspected sockpuppet used the most common way people from the czech republic write dates and so does the suspected sockmaster. The suspected sockpuppet uses this in the creation of the draft (diff) in the infobox and the suspected sockmaster uses this in the file description on commons:File:Jakub tencl.jpg with a star before the date. Although the suspected sockpuppet does not use a star before the date in the infobox, they do before the date written in the lead of the draft article ((same) diff) for no apparent reason. I have not seen the use of star before dates ever, so I would say that this is another unique thing which links the accounts.

Now to link the suspected sockmaster and IP:
 * The edit which the suspected sockmaster made, if they are connected, is something they were seemingly trying to avoid. If they are related, it was mostly likely a big mistake they made the edit using Tencl.jakub. If related, the account holder saw they made the edi on the wrong account about 30 mins later and in an attempt to hide their edit, tried to undo it (presumably thinking it would hide the edit). If related, they then performed the same edit almost straight afterwards, as they then wanted to still make the change, but wanted it to look like it was the IP (and not the suspected sockmaster).

Furthermore, CentralAuth for both the named accounts shows that they both are active on the Czech Wikipedia. On further inspection, it looks like a significant portion of the draft created by the suspected sockpuppet was translated via Google translate. I tested this, as I went to cs:Jakub_Tenčl and then used Google Chrome's "translate to English" function. It gave very similar text to what was in the draft. Although the accounts did not both edit the article on the Czech Wikipedia, the suspected sockpuppet pretty much was the only account that expanded the page with content (history of the article). If proven that the accounts are connected, it may be worth also notifying the Czech Wikipedia about this (but I don't know who and where). Also, the IP WHOIS results show that the IP is from somewhere in the Czech republic. Bearing in mind that both the two accounts and IP only edited the draft on enwiki/article on cswiki, or content related to the subject of the draft (Jakub Tencl) (e.g. hypnotherapy) on all wikis they have edited, this is highly suspicious.

The reason this is abusive is that, if proved to be controlled by the same person, is a deliberate attempt to try to write a autobiography by using a different account and to try and hide that it was an autobiography. Unfortunately, they (if proved) failed at this. I am requesting Check User to get definite evidence in respect to the accounts only. Quack! Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 21:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

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

I do apologize that I made an edit on Draft:Jakub Tencl. I found this article and then I made an insignificant edit, unfortunately, I did not realize at that moment that this is not allowed. I am still a newbie, I don't have too many edits and still seems I forget. Therefore, thank you to all who are administering articles, you're doing an important job, I do really appreciate it.

Now, I declare that account DanDvo is not mine.--Tencl.jakub (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I'd put the accounts as at most. . TonyBallioni (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This has been sitting here too long. Closing without prejudice.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)