Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yakag/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Carlab212 created Quintessential Capital Management as a relatively well formatted promotional article. After the content was sent to AfD Yakag made as their first edit an argument for keeping it. The fact that the argument is in relatively standard AfD argumentation style (not bulleted !vote, but arguing based on sourcing, etc.) suggests that neither of these might be the first account and that it is possibly a paid editing scenario with multiple previous accounts. Requesting CU to confirm. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

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

I was also considering opening an investigation of User:Yakag. Very suspicious to see a new account supporting another new account at Afd. In addition, as TonyBallioni pointed out, these two new editors seem to be fairly knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and formatting.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It is of further note that an IP has been correcting the format of these editor's comments on Articles for deletion/Quintessential Capital Management.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I've also added 213.215.132.6, based on behavioral evidence at editing the AfD and the article. Not requesting CU results of the IP because the CU policy does not allow that, but I think we likely also have enough for behavioral evaluation of it. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * User:87.0.164.127 is another possible, as this IP has only edited Quintessential Capital Management articles (including one not up for Afd).--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That could also make this a WP:MEAT situation, and the fact that Yakag was the older account but edited later (unless there are edits I can't see), suggests there might be sleepers that CU should check for. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That seems like a possibility to me. 87.0.164.127's first edit today at Talk:Quintessentially Group's notability discussion, which has nothing to do with the current Afd. The IP then removed his content to Talk:Quintessential Capital Management, the article that was created today that is being discussed for deletion. This may imply more (and less well informed) editors are being drawn in.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Yakag here. Sorry to see my integrity questioned, but I guess it's part of your process to be skeptical. Feel free to let me know if there's anything I can do to assist with your investigation. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakag (talk • contribs) 16:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , after CU results, do we think the behavioral evidence suggests MEAT? TonyBallioni (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Not the same. Happy to prove it if you suggest what is the procedure. I'm new to this and don't know the system too well. Thanks (yakag) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakag (talk • contribs) 18:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, sorry about the delay (out for the week end). Ok, whole story is this: in 2015 someone suggested a wikipedia entry for Quintessential by mentioning the company in the Globo Plc article. At the time, I entered a profile myself, but it was deleted right away for being too promotional if if I recall correctly. I waited almost two years for someone else to do the write up but no-one showed up. At this point I have identified one trusted lady, not connected to the company, and asked her to write the entry herself. I told her to write the entry as objectively as possible and based solely on the public documents she would find on the web (by then there were plenty). I believe she made a good job. After the entry was posted, I did answer some of the critics when they wrote what looked to me like inaccuracies (such as claiming that no articles were about the company itself, when a few clearly were so). I have never hidden my identity nor encouraged anyone else to do so. The article was objective and based on references. As far as myself, I am connected to the company, but I am by no means the author of the article. You are welcome to contact the author of the article directly and she can prove her identity and her lack of affiliation with the company in question. If you are able to pinpoint the geographic location of the relevant IP address, you will notice that is in a totally different place from the company's headquarters. regards Yakag (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * , a few question: one, was payment ever provided to the author? How was the author identified? Did they approach you with the offer to write the article or did you seek them out. Three, how would you explain the CheckUser result that determined its possible you are the same based on IP data? This seems to imply that they were at the same office as you. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

TonyBallioni: 1) absolutely not. 2) I am in a foreign country for a couple of weeks and am renting a desk at a shared office space (similar to wework). I met the author by the coffee machine. 3) we work from the same physical building. But you should see that my user ID was created from a different IP which is the one I usually work from (in a totally unrelated country). Yakag (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

and 2) I did approach the author. I spoke to her a few times before and noticed she knew enough about capital markets to be able to write something of the sort.Yakag (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Please compare these accounts. Thanks, GABgab 15:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's that they're the same, i.e. they're on the same IP address, but using different devices. . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your cooperation. If you don't mind my asking, your account was created in October 2015 but did not edit until this July - why might this be? Also, do you have any relation to Quintessential Capital Management? Regards, GABgab 20:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for your responses., I highly recommend that you (and ) read our policy on editing with a conflict of interest - put simply, if you are connected with the subject of an article (financially or otherwise), we strongly advise that you not edit the article or solicit others to do so. You are free, of course, to propose changes on the talkpage and engage in discussion. For now, closing without further action. GABgab 00:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)