Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/An-Apple-A-NY-Day/Archive

12 August 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Look at the suspected sock puppets comments @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stephanie_Adams#Adams.27_sites

This user is referencing ip logs which only someone that has log privileges for the external sites should be able to access. Considering these external sites are managed by an entity called Goddessy, it should be no surprise that this user is indeed yet another sockpuppet whose sole purpose is to add vanity comments to this BLP article SuperJews (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2011 (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

 * Moved case. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  19:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not 100% convinced of it, and OnlyGodTheFatherKnows has gone stale. Closing for now. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

25 August 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This user has made a few comments indicating that he/she has access to the server logs of a website that is owned by the sock puppet. While OnlyGodTheFatherKnows is a new account, he/she has made almost no edits and appears to be advocating for the sock puppet in discussion pages. Fasttimes68 (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

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


 * Suspected sockpuppets

Please also check 173.56.121.76 and 173.56.121.228. Similar comments at AfD. They appear to be a block evading IP of the above, and possibly of 71.183.68.120 (same ISP and city as the other two), which is blocked for 3 months for making legal threats. FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * First, nice job opening this case as closed. Anyway, I've blocked OnlyGodTheFatherKnows as a suspected sock per behavioral evidence. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Both IPs blocked 2 weeks. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

26 August 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Just like the recently blocked SP User:OnlyGodTheFatherKnows this ip is commenting on the master puppets BLP AfDand indicating they have inside information to the BLP subject. Could you please check this ip user against User:OnlyGodTheFatherKnows's recent ip address? Perhaps a subnet range ban for ip users (temporary of course) might be in order? Regards Fasttimes68 (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Wasn't that dealt with above? FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This sock farm appears related to the much older User:Swiksek and its sockpuppets which edited with similar intent: promotion of SA and removal of information they deemed unflattering. See and. The latter is from the same ISP and city as the other IPs here, while the former is an indef-blocked sock. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I see it goes back to 2006. I've added them to the same category. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Yes, it was already blocked. Fasttimes, please check the cases before creating more. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

28 August 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

User is exhibiting the same behavior as the sock master. Fasttimes68 (talk) 23:18, 28 August 2011 (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

 * IP blocked 2 weeks. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

18 March 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This article has received several edits all claiming a basic fact "her husband is not a billionaire". These new accounts are SPA accounts. This editor is without a doubt An-Apple-A-NY-Day

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kara_Young&diff=448569541&oldid=448518311 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kara_Young&diff=482186968&oldid=482148243 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kara_Young&diff=482372343&oldid=482240997 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kara_Young&diff=448404741&oldid=448331122 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kara_Young&diff=482411216&oldid=482384330 Fasttimes68 (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * it appears that this possible sock may be participating in an AFD discussion as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kara_YoungFasttimes68 (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2012 (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
The account listed as sockmaster and An-Apple are stale, no way to connect them per technical data; not sure if behavior is conclusive either (not that it really matters). Amalthea 13:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * IPs are dynamic, ranges busy, can't offer prevention of further disruption. Amalthea  13:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

30 March 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Per a comment at Sockpuppet investigations/MikeHasIssues, I am re-opening the invesigation here. Both users were going after User:Fasttimes68, and a sock of the original user also used the phrase "has issues" here. Therefore, requesting new CU. Calabe1992 15:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding IP per contributions. Calabe1992 17:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding Hellotoyoumyfriend, which was just created. Calabe1992 18:30, 30 March 2012 (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
All accounts are very related to Hershebar. --MuZemike 11:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked and Tagged. MuZemike hit the IP for a month. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  06:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

04 April 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Here we go again - back to the anti-playmate agenda. , but requesting check for sleepers as well. Calabe1992 14:16, 4 April 2012 (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
A match, but no other accounts. TN X Man 15:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks. Could someone please block and change tag. Calabe1992 15:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked and (re)tagged. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

14 April 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Blocked sock of Hershebar, editing the same page using the same rationale Fasttimes68 (talk) 11:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Egads. Sorry I opened a new sockmaster. This should have gone under Hershebar. Fasttimes68 (talk) 11:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * and subsequently it was reverted. If someone disagrees in the meantime, go ahead and revert me. Calabe1992 00:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked and tagged. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  21:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

16 April 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

WP:DUCK. New user wikistalking Fasttimes68 (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2012 (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

 * One already blocked by MuZemike for socking, blocked and tagged. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  21:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

20 April 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

See very similar contribution at Articles for deletion/Louise Vyent regarding modeling/photography - very likely another account. Probably worth another sleeper check at this point anyway. Calabe1992 17:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, username is similar to User:OnlyGodTheFatherKnows, who was another sock. Calabe1992 17:32, 20 April 2012 (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
✅ the following are the same:
 * TN X Man 18:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * One sock already blocked, another blocked by Slon02. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * One sock already blocked, another blocked by Slon02. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

02 July 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

User is a probable sleeper account. Both user and ip user exhibit exact same trademarks as the master SPA. WP:DUCK is quaking loud and clear. CU requested, as well as protecting page to auto confirmed accounts. Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

User is also forum shopping a bit. Created a BLP submission. For an account that was created in Early May and not active until recently, this lends further credence to this user being a sleeper.Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

107.6.124.27 is interesting. The ip address resolves to voxel.net, which is a hosting provider and not an ISP. The likelihood of this ip being used as a proxy server is high.

Request protecting articles editor vists to auto-confirmed a temporary subnet block on the 98.14.172.XXX range.

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

I believe that the two people who have commented on the SPI against Fasttimes68 may also be socks of An-Apple-A-NY-Day:

Those two certainly pass my WP:DUCK test. Furthermore, it's entirely possible that the supposed sock account is actually an imposter run by the person who opened the SPI as a means of trying to get back at Fasttimes68, so I'll ask that they be checked out too:

Thank you. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 05:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - - Behavoir seems similar accross the board and with very few contribs, only some could be open for a duck block.  for NobleDarkling, persuing that there is not enough evidence at this time (because of counter evidence) to support that this person is a sock of this master. --  DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  14:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

✅ as each other:



User:NobleDarkling is, at best. There are dynamic IPs and open proxies involved here. I'll leave this open if anyone feels these socks are sufficiently related to User:An-Apple-A-NY-Day. --MuZemike 23:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * ...and it seems that CovenRockCA is ❌. --MuZemike 23:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I can beleive such. Blocked and tagged as needed. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  02:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

11 July 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

WP:DUCK. More quacking going on here than at a chirocpractors office. I don't think diffs are necessary. Just look at the two edits from this user and compare them to any of the recently blocked socks. All the same pages, same blathering, etc. Fasttimes68 (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2012 (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

 * Obvious sock is obvious, MuZemike blocked. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  17:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked . -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  19:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

18 July 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Obvious sock is obvious. Refer to User:DeltaQuad for confirmation. Requesting Checkuser to detect sleepers. Fasttimes68 (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2012 (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

 * Obvious duck is obvious. Keep playing whack-a-mole for now. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  02:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

22 July 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Proxy server edit of article targeted by banned sockmaster. Fasttimes68 (talk) 01:28, 22 July 2012 (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
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  01:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For an SPI report, we need to be more formal in our filings because they are serious matters. Would you kindly reword? Thank you,
 * Targeted the /21, it's him. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  00:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

24 July 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Similar behavior as sockmaster, "model space" edits, wikistalking etc... DQ is familiar with this master. Fasttimes68 (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2012 (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
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  15:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I just blocked 3 proxies that he's using, but I think the fact that he mentioned his own SPI, is wikistalking the same user, and like were starting to learn, is using proxies, I think we can nuke this sock. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  15:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked and closing.

24 July 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Wikistalking The edit to "death by burning" could be construed as a threat. Fasttimes68 (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Fasttimes68 (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2012 (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

 * Another proxy blocked. Blocked the account. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  17:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Two more accounts, and, are also ✅. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

29 July 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Obvious stalker is obvious New SPA account's first contribution is to AfD? Yeah right. Fasttimes68 (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2012 (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
Obvious sock is obvious. Blocked and tagged. --MuZemike 17:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

05 August 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

All of these editors are new entrants into the Stephanie Adams article, which has been attacked by the sockmaster for years. After the article and talk page got protected, socking by proxy server was attempted for a while. Once the sock lost access to the proxies, things settled down for a few days. Then all of a sudden of these editors appeared within a matter of days of each other, and all of them seem to support positions the sockmaster supoprts, such as adding the following information to the article: A reference to a lawsuit the subject was involved in, and a detailed bibliography of works by the author. Then some discoveries were made:


 * This screenshot of an ad on elance
 * And this project description on freelancer (saved via WebCite). Note the name of project poster "fbell74".

Also from that URL is a request from the "client" that reads ''The prior assistant was fired and we are now handling this project so we apologize for the delay. We would like to offer you more than the $20 you were due. We only ask that you make one or two comments, if needed, in the talkpage the next coming days. It might not be necessary, but if you can add in the talk page that you feel your edit and addition about the NJ guardianship should remain, that would suffice. Concensus thus far is that it be added, as long as you include that you agree. For the additonal $10, that is all we need. Thank you for your professionalism and we hope to keep you on board for future projects.''

This editor is receiving instructions not only on what to edit, but to offer a specifc opnion on AfD. While Fbell74 is obviously caught in this web, any reasonable person would have to suspend disbelief and not conclude the other three editors have also been solicited in a similar manner. Fasttimes68 (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Also for having remarkably similar patterns of editing: Hoary (talk) 11:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fbell74 (contributions) -- who appears to be editing for payment (see elsewhere on this page) and whose user page was created by Pkeets -- has made edits related to Stephanie Adams, minor edits to Besso Limited (now at AfD), and edits to Candis Magazine, among a wide variety (if smallish number) of articles.
 * Kathym89 (contributions) started editing with a series of six small edits to articles about schools, some (all?) in Liverpool. Her seventh edit was the addition of 3,836 bytes to the article on Michael John Wade. To quote the article on Wade, "Wade currently holds the title of Chairman of Besso Insurance Group Ltd". Kathym89's later (not so many) edits include more to Wade, and edits to Besso Limited.
 * Jason.grandiola2014 (contributions) started off with six edits (of middling size) to an article on a school in the Liverpool area, but soon created 6,446-byte‎ Newhall Publications and 4,955-byte Candis Magazine.
 * Michaelc14 (contributions) started with five small edits to articles on schools in the Liverpool area, and thereupon dedicated himself to Besso Limited.

Also:

Hoary (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * : a little more outgoing than the others, with a user page (is based in Liverpool, United Kingdom and contributes to Liverpool centric or finance and business topics) and the occasional cryptic message. He supplied a photo (later deleted) of Michael John Wade, to whose article he also contributed. He also edited Vincent Tchenguiz (of great interest to Kathym89) and FDM Group.
 * : a straightforward SPA, only editing (and aggrandizing) FDM Group (in this series of edits).

Also:

Hoary (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * , who (to quote Cavarrone from below) is the creator of article Michael John Wade, has a similar pattern of other editors, such as minor edits in articles about Liverpool schools and significant edits to Trafalgar Park, Wiltshire, an article about a country house purchased by the same Wade that has Kathym89 among its contributors. Note also this user has a very similar timing of edits (October-December 2011) to other suspected users such as  Michaelc14 and Jason.grandiola2014.

Also:
 * , a mayor contributor of Trafalgar Park, Wiltshire (Wade's country house), similar pattern of other editors (a number of minor edits to articles about Liverpool schools).
 * as above, mayor contributor of  Trafalgar Park, Wiltshire and a number of minor edits in  Liverpool schools articles.

Cavarrone (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

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


 * One addition, one correction. Fbell74's list of earlier contributions may be compared with this (WebCite). The specific request that appears above was made at Aug 3 2012 20:51:15 (according to freelancer.com), which I believe predates the start of this AfD. It's instead for the article's talk page, and it's uttered here. (Fbell74 is most polite, starting "In my humble opinion", and ending "Thank you for your consideration".) -- Hoary (talk) 09:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it count, I have added the COI template to these articles and I have nominated for deletion Besso Limited as it appears quite unnotable. I think User:Jason.grandiola2014 and User:Michaelc14, officially creators of Newhall Publications and Besso Limited pages, should be included in this investigation. Also note, as further vidence, that Candis Magazine page, created by Jason.grandiola2014, was later edited by the same Fbell74 . Cavarrone (talk) 07:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Michaelc14 started off with minor changes to articles on Liverpool schools before embarking on Besso Limited (now at AfD). Kathym89 also started writing for WP with small changes to articles on Liverpool schools before creating the article on Besso Limited and another on its boss Michael John Wade. I'm about to add these three users: Jason.grandiola2014, Michaelc14, and Kathym89. -- Hoary (talk) 10:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Interisting... one another mayor contributor of Besso Limited's boss article Michael John Wade is User:Nathanmobile, that is substantially a SPA for this article and for FDM Group article... that was created by another SPA editor, User:Xoffer, and that has as mayor contributor at least three other single-purpose accounts/sockpuppets, User:Domokun1979, User:ITpro27, User:Mazza1234. Also, both Nathanmobile and Kathym89 have edited the Vincent Tchenguiz page in the same period of time . Furthermore, Nathanmobile declares in his User page that he is based in Liverpool (coincidence?).Cavarrone (talk) 10:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added two more. However, I don't think that Mazza1234 or ITpro27 are related to the others: one adds material compactly and modestly, the other actually removes fluff. -- Hoary (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would add to the list User:Lindad2011: the creator of article Michael John Wade, has a similar pattern of other editors, such as minor edits in articles about Liverpool schools and significant edits to Trafalgar Park, Wiltshire, an article about a country house purchased  by the same Wade that has Kathym89 among its contributors. Note also this user has a very similar timing of edits (October-December 2011) to other suspected users such as  Michaelc14 and Jason.grandiola2014... Cavarrone (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good find. I'm adding Lindad2011 now. (If you make further discoveries of which you are pretty certain -- and I've a hunch that further socks await discovery -- you may wish to add them yourself.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking at his edit history, عباد ديرانية appears to be a genuine editor. Cavarrone (talk) 09:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. -- Hoary (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I disagree. This user's recent edits include a request for page protection on a page already protected, presumably to protect the "right version" of the article from being edited by autoconfirmed users.  This is that user's first and only edit made to to any notice/request board.  The circumstantial evidence points to this user being canvassed as well.  Fasttimes68 (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * While Fbell74 appears to be a paid editor and a sockpuppet/sockmaster (looking at his "portfolio" at Freelancer.com his articles include articles originally made by other SPA, such as Michaelc14 for the article Besso Limited) I still don't see any evidence about this user. In my view requesting a protection for a page already protected just denotes a lack of skills in that field, nothing more. He appears to be a two years old account that focuses his edits, with some regularity, on Arabic world, and made a lot of useful technical work on these pages (such addition of interwikis from Arab and Turkish Wikipedias). He has created an article that is doubtless encyclopedic and surely not result of paid editing (Astronomical_filter). He NEVER edited the Stephanie Adams article, just shared a couple of (non-partisan) opinions in the talk page, no different from what he has done in the same period in the talk page of Battle of Tremseh. Looking at his talk page he made an excellent work on organizing other Arabic Wikipedians to become Wikipedia Online Ambassadors. With respect, I really don't understand why he was posted here. Cavarrone (talk) 04:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * While it is my suspicion the first two editors in this SPI are hired guns, the last two appear to be canvassed via other means. This article gets relatively no newcomers, and in the span of a week we get four new editors parroting the socks positions?  WP:DUCK. Even in disagreement, you have my regards. Fasttimes68 (talk) 04:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I can confirm that عباد ديرانية was paid through Freelancer to edit the article and post comments, and based on the timing of edits and payments, Editorkabaap was also paid through a Freelancer account. However, the evidence would out at least one of the two, so I would need to provide it via email to a checkuser or arbcom member, as required. Two other editors were also hired or canvassed, (along with Fbell74), but both have already been blocked. I don't know anything about Pkeets. - Bilby (talk) 06:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If it is so, I'm very sad, I was sure he was "clean". About Pkeets, looking at this edit, it could be an alternative account of Fbell74: I have never seen an editor creating the user page for one another editor before (let's see what the CheckUser will say). Cavarrone (talk) 07:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I was disappointed as well - there have been a couple of editors I've seen who do really good work, but have made bad judgement calls along these lines. I can only assume that عباد ديرانية doesn't really understand WP's policies, as he mostly edits on ar.wikipedia. - Bilby (talk) 08:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at his edit history ["he" for simplicity's sake], Pkeets is a hugely energetic editor over a wide area (very commendable), and in large part (if not more) a genuine one. Yet there are distinct oddities. One of the last articles he edited before dedicating himself full time to Adams was Camerata Bariloche, which he had created. It doesn't seem ever to have had any independent sourcing. A more recent creation, also odd, was (later deleted) Masatoshi Fujitani, which at the time was titled Fujitani Masatoshi: though putting names of recent and living Japanese people in the Japanese order violates MOS-JA, I'm personally all for it and certainly it's understandable; yet the way the article is written suggests that the writer thinks that the second names (in the Japanese order) are the surnames (they're not). There's a basic misunderstanding of the subject here; and the whole affair has a single specified source: this page of a book, a page that actually just mentions the biographee's name but says next to nothing about him. I hope I'm wrong about this, but it looks as if the author was working from a source that he didn't really understand and felt unable to specify. -- Hoary (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If one wanted to speculate about about who the client "archangelseven" might be, this google search provides some surprising (or maybe not) results; I wasn't expecting to discover the subject writes about such lofty topics as angels arch-angels. Now I'm a bit rusty on my bible, but I did remember that there were 7 archangels, of whom I could recall Gabriel, Michael and Raphael.  I had to do a search to discover the names Uriel, Chamuel, Jophiel and Zadkiel.  Less than 30 seconds later I found this interesting page from 2006 which to my amazement mentions an interesting email exchange between the author of the blog and the subject's PR department, as well as a few commenters (two of which are named Gabriel and Michael) who the blog author labeled as her "supporters".  The author of the blog makes the astute observation that all of the commenters seem to be posting from the same ip address and might be (gasp) the same person.  Don't we have a word to describe that sort of behavior? Fasttimes68 (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Mention of "archangels" in this context brings this to mind. But let's drop it. Somebody was paying for edits; who this was doesn't matter. Furthermore, anyone who was interested in determining the identity (not the job of Wikipedia, I think) should note that there's no obvious reason for the paymaster to reveal his or her name, and thus that the more clearly the paymaster's name hints at an identity, the more plausible a joe job becomes. -- Hoary (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This hydra-headed writer really is a waste of time. Wondering how he or she had either (A) got so close to a pair of Anglo-Iranian plutocrats as to be able to take (aspect-ratio-distorted) headshots or (B) acquired rights to these photos, I decided to take a closer look. Seeing what was wrong with VincentTchenguiz.jpg wasn't rocket science, as the very metadata presented an image title that read in part: Supplied for single editorial UK print use only in the Sunday Telegraph. Copyright-Tom Stockill-All Rights Reserved.(01753 862508/07831 815511)This image must not be syndicated or transferred to other systems or third parties, and storage or archiving is not permitted.Any unauthorised use or reproduction of this image will constitute a violation of copyright. But some minutes of my finite lifespan went to show that the photo of his brother was ripped off from Rex Features via the Telegraph. I suggest that any and all images related to these usernames should be regarded with suspicion; however, I have to attend to other, WP-unrelated affairs for a few hours. -- Hoary (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Non-CU comment I agree the accounts are not socks and I was mistaken for opening this case up at this venue. The matter is now being discussed here. Fasttimes68 (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

involved user comment
I have read the discussion above. I admit that I was mistaken; yes I was hired through Frelancer, and did some work for a particular employer. But, at least as far as I believe, my work didn't violate any Wikipedia policies or guidelines. All of what I did was posting comments in the talk page, and sometimes when the employer asked me to do tasks that I know it violates the policies (One of which was, btw, requesting a ban for fasttimes) I refused. Even the things I discussed was supposed to be did immediately, but I preferred not do it before getting consensus, and at last I didn't make any edits to the article. I don't mind getting banned from editing this particular article, and I don't intend anyway to do any further work for freelancer; it was the first time, and the last. I don't know if the COI issues involves a full ban (temporary or instant), but since it was the first time, and since all of my over 1,000 edits here in two years was pure Wikipedia-for-Wikipedia, I hope it doesn't happen. Again, I don't plan for any further work like this --aad_Dira (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC).

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I'm trying to pick this apart now. However, while I can see why there are concerns that the accounts mentioned above are linked, I don't see any link to An-Apple-A-NY-Day here. If no link to the originating account is made, then this will need to be moved to a separate SPI. Risker (talk) 02:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, technically this is a meatpuppet report. So maybe I opened this up in the wrong place.  I couldn't find a better venue and someone suggested I just file it here since the master listed here is giving the meats their marching orders.  I could show you diffs and evidence that establish the link, but that would have to be done off-wiki.  If you want them, please ping me.  Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Results:
 * All of the accounts added by Hoary are so no check will produce results. Only one of these accounts has edited in the last six months. It seems as if there are concerns about notability of the articles these accounts focused on; we have deletion processes to address this, please consider them. (I note that at least one of these articles is currently at AFD)
 * There is no technical relationship whatsoever between, , , or . These accounts do not edit from the same continent, let alone the same country. If there is a meatpuppetry case to be made, it should be made elsewhere.
 * On reviewing the archives, I believe we are dealing with at least two different users who are targeting either (a) articles related to Stephanie Adams and/or (b) User:Fasttimes68. There is no technical evidence that any of the accounts in this report are related to the accounts that are identified in the archive. I'm going to ask a checkuser clerk to consider where we can move or split up this report, because the accounts identified by Hoary are working in a completely different topic area (one overlapping edit between Fbell74 and the others is not diagnostic even for co-ordinated editing) and the accounts identified by Fasttimes68 are definitely not socks of An-Apple-A-NY-Day or of each other.  Risker (talk) 03:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No action is needed since none of the mentioned parties are related to the master and the whole affair is a rather diluted mixup of different potential issues unrelated to this master. Closing for technical reasons as no action for a week by any CU or clerk. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 13:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * NOTE: See Sockpuppet investigations/Morning277 which has an extraordinary amount of crossover. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 18:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)