Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alaingarner/Archive

16 December 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Both suspected sockmaster and suspectede socks all have interest in only a very few articles: Jeffrey Kang, founder of Cogobuy. See here: Alaingarner, AmyCarter87 and Sugarpuffi To my opinion, all three at least work together a a marketing firm without declaring it, but they can be identical. For instance, all three have very short, nearly identical useprpages: User:Alaingarner, User:AmyCarter87 and User:Sugarpuffi.

Here Alain Garner admits that he will be hiring a professional writer for the Cogobuy-page. That was the same day that Sugarpuffi started working on Jeffrey Kang, the founder of Cogobuy. (He had 2 edits on Cogobuy before hibernating for a few months). In August Amy Carter registered and worked nearly only on Cogobuy and Jeffrey Kang.

The interesting part is that Amy Carter admits to be asked to edit by Alain Garner. And now Sugarpuffi claims to be begged to edit these pages. With his further remark (...) a friend of mine begged me to edit this page as he got some kind of company disciplinary probation because of some conflicts with a wiki editor that resulted in the cogobuy page looking bad to investors so I'm just doing him a favour. he seems to point at Alain Garner who has a close relation with Cogobuy.

I doubt if these three are in fact different users and think that they are misusing Wikipedia for undeclared paid editing and advertising. The Banner talk 21:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

At the end of the day I really don't care anymore I have been demoted over this thing, check my linkedin and am resigning over this so F**k it delete the page, don't delete the page, ban my account, don't ban my account I don't care anymore. I lost my job over this thing so I'm out, you decide if the world should know about this $2 billion publicly listed company, I don't give as S**t anymore ......

Kind Regards Alain Garner  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaingarner (talk • contribs) 05:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I defer the checkuser to someone more experienced with the tool. While we probably cannot prove paid editing, we have the admission of  COI editing, and our policy is that editing which has the effect of meatpuppetry is to be treated as puppetry. I'd suggest banning all 3; the subjects of the articles are notable; I'm revising them to remove promotionalism.  DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Having worked a little on the articles, it's clear that the quality of the editing is different in style & of somewhat higher quality than most of the more blatant  paid editing we've lately encountered--I would be quite surprised if it were any of the previous sockpuppet rings.  DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have also seen lately several people trying to use the "help a friend" excuse for obvious coi edits. One way of looking at it is that the new editor is proxying for the former editor, which we generally consider as meatpuppetry. Another is simply to reject the excuse, as a variant of the "my roommate did it" excuse. These lead to the same result: an indefinite block.  DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * These accounts are ✅:
 * Mike V • Talk 17:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Mike V • Talk 17:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Mike V • Talk 17:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 17:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)