Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alwayssmileguys/Archive

19 December 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

When the master was warned (not for the first time) about removing speedy deletion tags from articles he's created, a brand new account cropped up and, lo and behold, removed the speedy tag in their very first edit. bonadea contributions talk 21:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Appears sock created to removed CSD from article Diana Burbano. red dogsix (talk) 23:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I am LionelsMother, Diana Burbano, my email address is caddiewoodlawnmusical@gmail.com I was trying to fix a Wiki page that someone created for me, which was extremely erroneous. There is an assignment going around latino students to input Latinx playwrights of note for school credit. Here is a list of recent additions: :"Based on conversations that came out of the Chicago Carnaval, the students of my Latina/o Theatre class were each assigned to create a wikipedia article about a Latina/o theatre artist. Shout out to Carla Della Gatta for talking at length with me about this project. I just thought I'd share the articles, some of which are still in development. I also want to express gratitude to the ongoing scholars' conversations at LTC events for helping me to open up new opportunities for my students to learn about Latina/o work and to consider new ways of producing public knowledge. If you have particular questions about these wiki articles, email me at noe.montez@tufts.edu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalena_G%C3%B3mez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Grise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Ruiz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_Saracho https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milta_Ortiz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%A1ndido_Tirado https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Garc%C3%ADa-Romero https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Montoya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_John_Garc%C3%A9s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melinda_Lopez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Oscar_Pe%C3%B1a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mando_Alvarado https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_Bettis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaine_Romero — Preceding unsigned comment added by LionelsMother (talk • contribs)


 * Hi Iam Alwayssmileguys

I have an editing experience of about 300 pages, and i wont do such stupid thing to create another account in support of a page i created which was speeded without much proper grounds. Hope after the investigation you will know the truth. Always :) 08:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alwayssmileguys (talk • contribs)

I thank the checkuser admin for letting everyone know about the truth. And as per my profession in my 30's and not a student anymore. i am a postgraduate and a passionate writer and i am no student to any teacher now. Thanks for understanding Always :) (talk) 08:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I was just reading some SPIs and noticed the comment in the wrong section, so I moved it. I hope this is the right section for me to comment in – I'm technically a trainee, but haven't been told to do anything yet. Kevin ( aka L235 t  c   ping in reply ) 07:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think a CU is in order here. It's clearly not the same person behind the two accounts but I highly suspect its as one of the accounts has stated to be a teacher and a student. I believe a CU could still be done here to rule out the possibility as there is easily enough evidence to warrant a check such as this edit by Alwayssmileguys and this edit by LionelsMother. Mkdw talk 06:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The master is fairly clearly a paid editor. Whether they were paid to create Diana Burbano, and, if so, by whom, I can't say.
 * The following accounts are ✅:
 * is ❌.
 * All confirmed accounts blocked. I will tag and close momentarily.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Tagged and closing. Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe there was enough behavioural evidence to block LionelsMother for WP:NOTHERE and meat puppetry. In my opinion, it is also very apparent that this sock farm has engaged in massive paid editing and have consistently failed to meet both Wikipedia's notability standards and have not disclosed any paid editing. Many of these articles are already engaged in the deletion process. I have gone through dozens of the articles and blown them up under WP:TNT (as was done with the OrangeMoody case) and auto-confirmed semi-protected them from recreated. Due to the extend of this sock farm, I believe these preventative measures are required. If this case is re-example, I am fully willing to discuss further or retractive measures. Mkdw talk 02:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * is ❌.
 * All confirmed accounts blocked. I will tag and close momentarily.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Tagged and closing. Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe there was enough behavioural evidence to block LionelsMother for WP:NOTHERE and meat puppetry. In my opinion, it is also very apparent that this sock farm has engaged in massive paid editing and have consistently failed to meet both Wikipedia's notability standards and have not disclosed any paid editing. Many of these articles are already engaged in the deletion process. I have gone through dozens of the articles and blown them up under WP:TNT (as was done with the OrangeMoody case) and auto-confirmed semi-protected them from recreated. Due to the extend of this sock farm, I believe these preventative measures are required. If this case is re-example, I am fully willing to discuss further or retractive measures. Mkdw talk 02:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * is ❌.
 * All confirmed accounts blocked. I will tag and close momentarily.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Tagged and closing. Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe there was enough behavioural evidence to block LionelsMother for WP:NOTHERE and meat puppetry. In my opinion, it is also very apparent that this sock farm has engaged in massive paid editing and have consistently failed to meet both Wikipedia's notability standards and have not disclosed any paid editing. Many of these articles are already engaged in the deletion process. I have gone through dozens of the articles and blown them up under WP:TNT (as was done with the OrangeMoody case) and auto-confirmed semi-protected them from recreated. Due to the extend of this sock farm, I believe these preventative measures are required. If this case is re-example, I am fully willing to discuss further or retractive measures. Mkdw talk 02:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * is ❌.
 * All confirmed accounts blocked. I will tag and close momentarily.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Tagged and closing. Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe there was enough behavioural evidence to block LionelsMother for WP:NOTHERE and meat puppetry. In my opinion, it is also very apparent that this sock farm has engaged in massive paid editing and have consistently failed to meet both Wikipedia's notability standards and have not disclosed any paid editing. Many of these articles are already engaged in the deletion process. I have gone through dozens of the articles and blown them up under WP:TNT (as was done with the OrangeMoody case) and auto-confirmed semi-protected them from recreated. Due to the extend of this sock farm, I believe these preventative measures are required. If this case is re-example, I am fully willing to discuss further or retractive measures. Mkdw talk 02:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * All confirmed accounts blocked. I will tag and close momentarily.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Tagged and closing. Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe there was enough behavioural evidence to block LionelsMother for WP:NOTHERE and meat puppetry. In my opinion, it is also very apparent that this sock farm has engaged in massive paid editing and have consistently failed to meet both Wikipedia's notability standards and have not disclosed any paid editing. Many of these articles are already engaged in the deletion process. I have gone through dozens of the articles and blown them up under WP:TNT (as was done with the OrangeMoody case) and auto-confirmed semi-protected them from recreated. Due to the extend of this sock farm, I believe these preventative measures are required. If this case is re-example, I am fully willing to discuss further or retractive measures. Mkdw talk 02:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

27 December 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

I am asking for the behavioural evidence be compared against Alwayssmileguys, Teosocrates, NAFS-India-2008, and Wikieditor1343/ I believe 's check on Alwayssmileguys should have revealed all the accounts but I assume only from that one computer and one IP. Considering the size of the sock farm and that paid editing is involved, I am also asking for a CU be conducted on Wikieditor1343.


 * Behavioural evidence between Alwayssmileguys and Teosicrates: Draft:The Alliance for Independent Authors (ALLI) was submitted by Teosicrates and declined twice. The same day it was most recently declined, Alwayssmileguys created the article The Alliance for Independent Authors. The article created was a word for word copy and paste of the draft and then less than 25 minutes after being created, Teosicrates edited the article.


 * Behavioural evidence between Alwayssmileguys and NAFS-India-2008: NAFS-India-2008 created the article National Academy of Fire and Safety Engineering which was subsequently deleted and the user blocked for promotional spam. Alwayssmileguys created an expanded version of the article. It should also be noted that, one of Alwayssmileguys' confirmed socks edited this article as well. It suggests this also points towards a pattern indicative of paid editing whereby a company or individual attempted to create an article by themselves on Wikipedia and were unsuccessful. They seemingly, subsequently, reached out to Alwayssmileguys to create an article that would at a glance pass our new page patrollers. It should also be noted that the article RingMeMaybe (mobile application) was created by Alwayssmileguys and another editor was also engaged to edit the article for monetary gains, but in that case they properly disclosed this information on the talk page.


 * CU requested to search for sleepers of Wikieditor1343. Wikieditor1343 has edited three articles that were created by Alwayssmileguys: Honua Music, Leroy James Clampitt, and Gladius (music producer). These articles are all related and it wouldn't be unreasonable to suspect an editor to work on these articles in a batch. The problem is that Wikieditor1343 does not edit every day, yet in each case, the articles were all created by Alwayssmileguys on different days (Honua Music on November 27, Leroy James Clampitt on December 8, and Gladius (music producer) on December 13) and each time were edited by Wikieditor1343 on the same day, sometimes within hours. Switching in the other direction, the only other article Wikieditor1343 has majorly contributed to recently as been the article Axident which Alwayssmileguys edited on December 13 making for a huge amount of crossover editing between the two accounts.

Thank you, Mkdw talk 04:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * NOTE It has been confirmed that Alwayssmileguys was paid by a party for creating a page on Wikipedia. Please see . Mkdw talk 04:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Evidence suggests Wikieditor1343 is not the same person but contributions also indicate paid editing. Peter James (talk) 10:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I have blocked Wikieditor1343 as a WP:DUCK and awaiting CU information for possible sleepers. Mkdw talk 04:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * NAFS-India-2008 is.
 * Teosocrates and Wikieditor1343 are to each other and ❌ to the master.
 * Given the results, there are no sleepers to check for.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the check. It's likely that these are accounts possibly tied to the engager but it's all fairly circumstantial. Mkdw talk 05:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry that I didn't notice this, but I was just concerned with the immediate issue of deleting and/or improving sub-standard articles. Deb (talk) 09:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

27 December 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Alwayssmileguys was blocked on 25 December. On 26 December User:Magnolia677 tagged three of their creations for deletion. Oneplusoneistwo was created today 10:08, 27 December 2015 and promptly made three frivolous AfD nominations of articles created by Magnolia677. Yes, 1+1=2, and an obvious duck is an obvious duck Sam Sailor Talk! 15:07, 27 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
✅, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

10 January 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

First edit was to create Honua music NeemNarduni2 (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2016 (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

 * Superfluous3 is ✅ to . Blocked the new account without tagging.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added the tag, closing case now. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

21 January 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

All editors were involved in the article Julianna Pollifrone. I was lead there by User:Nabila66 who created a word for word recreation of the article Triple F.A.T. Goose which was blown up under WP:TNT after it was discovered Alwayssmileguys had a massive sock farm for undeclared black hat editing. Nabila66 was blocked as a duck but I am concerned this a return of another sock farm. Mkdw talk 17:09, 21 January 2016 (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

 * Scambridge1972 and LGfatcat are ✅ to each other and ❌ to the master or any other blocked sock in the archives.
 * Nabila66 is ❌ to anyone.
 * I blocked the confirmed accounts without tagging. Lately, what I'm seeing is that the locations of the socks are widely diverging. We're talking about different countries and even more than two. If this is paid editing, that's not totally unexpected, meaning that one or more people may be orchestrating the editing, but the editors may be from other parts of the world. If we want to tag these blocked editors as socks of the master anyway based on behavior, that's okay, but I don't want them tagged as confirmed to the master by CU evidence because I see no technical relationship. That happened the last go-around, and I will probably alter the tag to protect the integrity of the CU.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the check. Closing. Mkdw talk 18:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

21 February 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

As noted at COIN, Astronomer145 appears to be an undisclosed paid editor. Their first edit was to !vote keep Articles for deletion/Jibin which was about an article Alwayssmileguys created. I think this justifies a CU. SmartSE (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Just want to add here to make it easier for admins/'crats who work here. Alwayssmileguys was community-banned for socking and undisclosed paid editing at ANI here and said that they would keep coming back. I'll note that their statement there, is very parallel to the statement that made by Astronomer145 at COIN, where they proclaimed their "rights" and distracted from the point at hand. Very likely the same editor, even if the CU fails (as it might, as the master was banned at the end of December). Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Another data point: One of Alwayssmileguys' created articles was José Maria A. Cariño. Astronomer145 has created José Maria Ancheta Cariño, about the same person. --bonadea contributions talk 20:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

- if you point out the idioscyncracies you see perhaps I can address them...

here is some further behavioral stuff on top of the DUCK signs already noted. Please compare the word choices ("speedy del" for example), the lack of using "the" or "a", the weird spacing between words and punctuation, and adding a line break before their sig (note: I had to add the breaks artificially here due to the tq template):
 * this dif by AlwaysSmiles:
 * Tradeo article has enough links including from Reuters . So how can you give speed del req ??? Always :) (talk) 11:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * you can see again in this dif by AlwaysSmiles:
 * Alright No worries ! I am removing it as many are requesting and are conserned with my page. Thanks for stalking into my page continuously . Always :) (talk) 07:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * you can compare that with this dif, by Astronomer
 * It seems like this editor Jytdog is harrassing me and accusing with prejudice ? As a wiki editor I have rights to create articles of my choice and I love writing articles. Seeing a bundle of messages and poped in and saw this editor Jytdog tagged speed del for almost all articles I created. I dont know why he is attacking my articles ? They are days old and could be speeded by editors who reviewed those articles previosly . I doubt Jytdog's intentions . I want some help !!! Astronomer145 (talk) 06:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * and with this dif, which is the only other thing Astronomer wrote on a talk page:
 * Keep Keep this page as Significant Coverage is seen . The New Indian Express., ibnlive.com., mathrubhumi.com, manoramaonline.com. etc are top and leading national newspapers and are reliable sources. More over Limca Book is considered a Big record in India. Astronomer145 (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The stylistic idiosyncracies are the same. I hope that is helpful. Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This remains on hold. I'm not sure if the additional evidence presented here has been reviewed, or if you would like more before deciding.  To update the status of their contribs, see Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard - of the 10 articles they created, 7 have been deleted via speedy or AfD, the other 3 have been cleaned. This account has not been used since Feb 21 per their contribs.  Probably have gone off to do more paid editing under another username.  Anyway do let me know.  Thx. Jytdog (talk) 23:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Is there any update on this? Thanks SmartSE (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The crossover with José Maria Ancheta Cariño and Jibin seems like WP:DUCK to me. I would still endorse a check and for sleepers since this editor has a well documented history of jumping IPs and creating multiple new accounts. Mkdw talk 21:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - Waiting for global input. (If I don't handle this isn a couple days, another CU is free to take over this case, I'm not that active these days. NativeForeigner Talk 09:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There are lots of similarities, but there's also some odd idiosyncrasies that I don't see repeated after a cursory investigation--if I were more sure I'd nuke all their contributions. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - No. I wasn't able to figure out the phenomena I was seeing even with some help from stewards. Just re-endorsing, I would check it but simply do not have the time. NativeForeigner Talk 01:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Astronomer145 is ✅, blocked, and tagged. The reason this happened so quickly is because I checked back on February 22, but I took no action because of NF's hold while he investigated the other issues. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)