Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Archivesharer/Archive

25 May 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Editing exact same areas since block, and Articles for deletion/Michael de la Force.  Я ehevkor ✉  20:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

User and IP also share habit of signing in brackets    Я ehevkor  ✉  21:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Adding Lmpartners above, with similar history and behavior as that of IP 68, and who chronologically precedes the other accounts. Edits began only when IP 68 started receiving warnings. 99.153.142.225 (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * All accounts have a fondness for going into other users' talk pages and revising or removing discussion by other accounts:, , . 99.153.142.225 (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what LMPartners has said about this, or how it may relate to it.I do not see any history except photographs. What I wrote and you can mark my words; is that you are not telling the truth as editors. You are making claims that items are self-published that are clearly published by international governments which are recognized members of the United Nations. You appear to be running an operation that is very much like high school. You do not seem to be seeking actual knowledge from unless you read it in a PR mag or newspaper. A good PR person can deliver any of the third party things you desire (that is just a matter of money). Ridiculous! But, that is what happens to groups like yours. Another example that is quite poor in thought was; to suggest a journalist that began their career at 20 years of age and worked eighteen years with bona fide press credentials to prove it somehow would inherit their recognition. There may be a lot for all to learn, but do not exempt yourselves. There is always someone or something bigger and better! I do not care if you are sock puppets, or not! You are not great information gatherers. It is good to see Britannica is going full steam ahead. At least they have a track record for using their brains and are not juvenile in their knowledge. How do you think they got information before the mags you want to base your beliefs on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archivesharer (talk • contribs) 21:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I have just checked your logs; there is nothing there from a sock puppet perspective from me, at all. The complaint is bogus garbage! What is your problem? I have not even been working on the article. I agreed with you that it should be deleted. Very odd! (Archivesharer (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC))

Feels almost pointless putting this here (Is SPI active any more?) but the IP 68.174.69.145 is now editing, apparently on behalf of the now indef blocked Archivesharer.  Я ehevkor ✉  23:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there a conflict?

It has been requested that you cease and desist using the subject's name. We are on the Columbia University servers. If you wish to shut them down you can speak with the admins. In the end you will cease and desist using the subject's name. We will seek each of your names as well! You do not own the community anymopre than anyone else. In fact, if you are an American non-profit you are owned by the American people! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.111.18.140 (talk • contribs) 12:37, June 5, 2012‎


 * Simply put, Michael de la Force has no right to have his name removed from this, or any other site. You cannot copyright or trademark your name. Removing his name from the conflict resolution pages here would render said discussions nonsensical, so that will not happen. And we certainly can contact CU's admins to let them know you are using their computer system to vandalize Wikipedia pages.
 * Oh, and for the record, non-profit just means the WMF is a privately owned company that earns no profit margin. It is not a public service. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: Page now semi-protected due to the repeated block-evading, legal threat issuing IPsocks. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Both named accounts are already indef-blocked and Checkusers will not comment on the IPs. You are correct to pursue this at ANI for block evasion. Any blocks based on this case will have to be done based on behavioral evidence alone. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers, although I didn't think a checkuser was requested.  Я ehevkor ✉  17:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right...I was thinking out loud. :) ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  18:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

06 June 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

. Bagged and tagged. Here for the record. The Bushranger One ping only 15:37, 6 June 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

 * It's blocked. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  14:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)