Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ktwestside

Ktwestside

Ktwestside (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Populated account categories: confirmed

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ktwestside/Archive.

07 September 2013

– A checkuser has completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.

Suspected sockpuppets

• Cathron (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Rodesywiki (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mariemayer (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

All 4 of these accounts were used within a day to advocate keeping the article Bob's Watches at its deletion discussion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob's Watches.

Interestingly, each of the accounts had prior edits that weren't related to Bob's Watches, which leads me to believe that this could be more of a meat-puppetry case. However, just to make sure, I'm requesting CheckUser to try to either confirm or dispel the suspicions that these accounts are connected. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Hi, just to clarify: I know one of the other users mentioned here - (rodesywiki) He's a friend/industry colleague of mine; as writers, we share a mutual friend who did some freelance pieces for the Orange County Register years ago. One reason we both responded here is because we know that it's a beyond-legit publication, a stark contrast to the small-time local paper as was being alleged; Second, notability: The source article that was posted was relevant to the topic at hand; we live in LA, where a higher-than-average number of people count something like Rolex watches as part of their lifestyle. Im certainly not included in this demographic!, but we were surprised that the notability of a company page specializing in a luxury company (#1 in its field) was being debated, when there are so many other obscure/unknown pages. Our posts were done from our own accounts though, and in no way did I have any influence over what he wrote). If I'm not mistaken, rodesywiki is fairly new to Wikipedia (?) and likely didnt realize that the piggyback posting would be misconstrued. SO, to officially respond to this, NO, he or any of these other users in question, are not my sock, meat or any other type of puppet. I live in California, so I rarely eat meat & its too hot for socks. I have to say I was a bit taken aback & a little confused over the reaction to this AfD debate - editors seemed to be looking for suspicion/conspiracy regarding a process that is a typical part of Wikipedia. So four (or however many) people voted the same way in the same time frame, and that's cause to warrant an 'investigation,' even though its clearly stated that none of the users in question made edits on the PAGE in question..? Seems a bit premature is all. Ktwestside (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Self-endorsed for CU check. The check suggests that two people were involved: one edited as Ktwestside and Rodesywiki, and another as Mariemayer and Cathron. Materialscientist (talk) 04:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

---