Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tzaquiel/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
Suspected sockmaster had been editing Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his 2024 presidential campaign, as seen by their contributions. With many of their edits being repeatedly reverted by other editors, they were temporarily blocked twice for edit warring, as seen here. The first sockpuppet account is newly created and has exclusively edited the campaign article, as seen here. The second sockpuppet account was created a day later, and has similarly only edited the campaign account, as seen here.

All three accounts share similar editing habits. They have repeatedly tried to scrub the article of potentially damaging information to Kennedy's campaign (example 1, 2, and 3). Two of which have made heavy use of Kennedy's Twitter account as a primary source of information (example 1, and 2). Woko Sapien (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, on the campaign article's talk page, two of these accounts have made argumentative posts that the article is not painting Kennedy in a positive enough light (despite the fact that any negative passage in the article is clearly backed up by reliable sources) here and here. --Woko Sapien (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Yes, I made a single post on my account (this account) that you were reverting any political opinion Kennedy had which did not relate to vaccines (his most controversial, and IMO, most incorrect, opinion).
 * You reverted multiple cited posts, arguing that primary sources are not acceptable, while I argued they are acceptable because they only were used to establish the fact that Kennedy himself did establish his position as quoted.
 * I accused you of vandalism and censorship, apologized a few minutes later, and then you reverted more cited changes and launched an investigation against me.
 * This is petty, and genuinely not a good way of stewarding a page for a reasonably popular presidential candidate. All of his views should be presented, not just those you find distatesful. Ergglebergglrflorg (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you Abecedare.
 * I want to point out:
 * 1) A few days ago it was 'confirmed' by a check user that I was a sock puppet, but that was reverted. I think this may have been a case of a biased check user, but I don't want to hurl accusations
 * 2) I am more than open to a check user comparing my IP with others, or doing whatever other checkuser magic they have available to them. I am not Mensch0011 or Tzaquiel, just a guy who started editing on Wikipedia about a week ago and managed to choose a controversial topic right off the bat xD Ergglebergglrflorg (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, I would like to correct my past post. Someone wrote that I was 'confirmed' as a sock puppet by a check user, but it looks like the person who wrote that was not a check user.
 * Also, please look at the third example:
 * "All three accounts share similar editing habits. They have repeatedly tried to scrub the article of potentially damaging information to Kennedy's campaign (example 1, 2, and 3). "
 * The allegation is that I 'tried to scrub the article of potentially damaged information...', but I didn't remove anything. I added a section on Kennedy's apparent support of the idea of populism (it was a weak addition, and was taken down and I did not undo that revision) and a section on Kennedy's support from independent media, which I justified by showing he has done a podcast and interview circuit with millions of combined views. That was moved around, some interviews removed, and others retained, and I am ultimately OK with how it was handled.
 * So even in the allegation against me, the provided example is misleadingly framed as me 'scrubbing info' where I am simply elaborating on the positions of the candidate and his public reception, in the appropriate sections with citations (largely primary sources, as I cited interviews with the candidate)
 * All that nonsense aside, looking forward to this investigation and its inevitable result: no strong evidence that I am a sock puppet. Ergglebergglrflorg (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Comment: and  are SPAs with a shared interest and POV, with the latter especially unlikely to the user's first account.  is an old-account that was resurrected after a 9 year hiatus to edit the same area with the same POV but then went silent after being blocked for two-weeks by  for edit-warring. Sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry is possible but difficult to determine based on behavioral evidence available so far since the topic of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 2024 presidential campaign has naturally engendered new interest. A CU would help confirm/refute sockpuppetry. Abecedare (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * A CheckUser hasn't looked into your account so far (afaik). What you are referring to is this tagging of your page by a non-CU/non-admin, which I reverted as premature. Abecedare (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * CU shows ❌ Not enough evidence to take Admin action at this time. Doug Weller  talk 16:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I assume Doug meant to close. Bbb23 (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23 I thought a clerk would close it. Doug Weller  talk 08:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)