Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AnEditorNameA/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Several SPAs have shown up disruptively editing and loudly quacking around furniture related articles, CEOs, and related AfDs. The likelihood of socking has been brought up by another editor at COIN, subsequent to which observation I opened this SPI. Brianhe (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I stand by what I said in the COIN linked above. A promotional article is created by an SPA with copyvio from a PR piece, and the editor restores the copyvio after removal. An IP shows up to contest the speedy (only edit ever). Another new account shows up to falsely claim the AFD has closed as KEEP and to remove the AFD notice. The original account creates promotional articles about senior staff at the company (after first trying to move an existing article out of the way and then trying to hijack it) and links the new articles and various associated articles together. COI, copyvio, promo, aggressive defensive... the IP could be a good faith edit while logged out, but the bad faith edits by the second SPA account leave me with no doubt that this is socking. Meters (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Certainly weak evidence at best, but I would like to point out that the main article being promoted seems to be Design Within Reach and one of the accused is User:Designtime1225. The obvious similarities of design would suggest a COI/supporting evidence to show that it is the same person. TheMagikCow (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This is already at COIN. It was opened here because of the socking concerns expressed by several editors Meters (talk) 03:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I dispute the statement that it's weak evidence. It's pretty clear from the actions of the accounts that there's a strong connection - I don't see that it could be just a coincidence. As already said, this is already open at COIN - it looks like the people at COIN are waiting for action to be taken here. I hope the people here aren't also waiting for action to be taken at COIN because that would be a silly situation to be in. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Please, compare those two accounts.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  10:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, this also looked suspicious to me when I came across it independently of my clerk duties. Thanks to those who brought this here. GABgab 15:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The following accounts are :
 * PhilKnight (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)