Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Twinkelvi/Archive

01 April 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Per Pinkelvi's own talk page comment, acting as a sock for currently blocked Winkelvi. – S. Rich (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure this is worth opening an SPI for. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, considering this, it is worth knowing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, since Pinkelvi has made an admission about being blocked (as Winkelvi), I'd think an immediate indef for Pinkelvi is a proper course of action. – S. Rich (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Already blocked by me. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I just added Winkelvi, the second coming. Same pattern of impersonation with userpage remarks. Already blocked by me just now. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way, I've added this and now Twinkelvi for the record because these socks are likely related to one another. I'm not sure what this SPI hopes to achieve. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Looks more like impersonation than socking to me... Skyerise (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Considering Winkelvi's comments at his talk and protection request, it seems so. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * However I think an check user investigation is needed to see if the editor(s) who has/have been creating these attack accounts can be identified (as the accounts will then be socks of another user). -- PBS (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, who is the actual puppetmaster, one wonders.... Skyerise (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * At the moment, Twinkelvi. Should we move this page there for now? Winkelvi is quite upset. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Move it to Twinkelvi (AFAICT the eldest one) and reopen it. It can always be moved again an older master is identified. -- PBS (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. As I commented to PBS, I did my NAC on this as a matter of good faith for Winkelvi. If other socks pop up, then going after them (and not Winkelvi) in a "new" SPI is the right thing. That way Winkelvi can enjoy their break. – S. Rich (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Based upon the technical and behavioral evidence, the suspected accounts are all ✅. DoRD helped reviewed this case with me and we both agree that Winkelvi does not appear to be involved. Mike V • Talk 18:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)