Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Artie04/Archive

Account was renamed to in November 2011

06 November 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

User:Artie04 created an account on May 26, 2011 and, as far as I can tell, went about his editing business. He created some new articles, used too many "minor" indications when he shouldn't have, but essentially was typical for any new editor. On October 25, 2011, User:WikiWriterWikiWriter appeared and began exclusively editing articles that Artie04 had previously done a lot of editing to (e.g. Rolled Up, Slade Douglas and Clif Bar ). Additionally, their editing patterns are the same (creating user space drafts and working on them until moving to main page, topics of interest to edit, etc).

Either Artie04 doesn't know that you're not allowed to have multiple accounts or he's trying to dodge criticism. I think its the former, personally, and that is why this SPI case is procedural and not personal in nature. What I would like to see happen is have WikiWriterWikiWriter permanently blocked as a sockpuppet and then have Artie04 warned by an administrator not to create any additional accounts for possibility of being permanently blocked himself. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:43, 6 November 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
If you think it's former, the accounts involved should at least be informed. WilliamH (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Both accounts now notified of SPI. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Artie04 has edited since your notification, but obviously hasn't responded. Using multiple accounts is not inherently prohibited - how exactly have they been used abusively? WilliamH (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * While they are not inherently prohibited, the onus is on the user who wishes to have multiple accounts to satisfactorily explain why they think they should be able to use them. Neither Artie04 nor WikiWriter have abused the privilege as far as I can tell, but they do violate the following sock puppet policies:
 * Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts — per WP:ILLEGIT
 * Avoiding scrutiny — per WP:SCRUTINY
 * Furthermore, neither account links to the other one to let the Wikipedia community know it is the same person — per WP:SOCK
 * I see no reason why this editor needs to have multiple accounts, and by his unresponsiveness to comment here despite notification, clearly demonstrates he wants no part of community interaction (WP:HEAR) Jrcla2 (talk) 02:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I did not know that I was expected, or even allowed, to chime in here. Sorry. I will abandon WikiWriterWikiWriter. My intention when I created the WikiWriterWikiWriter account was simply to have a more fanciful sounding name. Then, once it was up and running, I alternated between my two accounts- most often unwittingly, if you can believe that - but never with any malicious or devious or circumventing intent. Look at the work I've done, and you'll see it was performed with the most careful attention to the rules of Wikipedia. The only rule I broke -- the one for which this very page exists -- was done by accident. I will hereby cease to use WikiWriterWikiWriter, I will not create another account, and I will continue to contribute only through Artie04. Sorry for the trouble. Artie04 (talk) 04:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I also now see that I can simply change my username (WP:UNC). Still learning.Artie04 (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Everything seems resolved here. Keegan (talk) 07:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

30 March 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

See, File:Amtel logo.png and WP:AN. Choice of usernames and edit patterns suggest promotional paid editing. As with past paid spamming cases, there may be more accounts. MER-C 02:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added the alleged sockmaster's original account. Valfontis (talk) 03:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And another. Valfontis (talk) 03:19, 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
WikiWriterWikiWriter and Artie04 are, so they'll have to be considered behaviourally. The following are ✅ socks of Expewikiwriter: WilliamH (talk) 03:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I had already blocked and tagged Wikiwiki2013. I've blocked and tagged the other two socks. I haven't blocked the master, I need to read the policy first. Valfontis (talk) 04:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I read the policy and consider myself involved, so I'll leave blocking the main account to someone else's discretion. Valfontis (talk) 04:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See also: Sockpuppet investigations/Artie04/Archive Valfontis (talk) 05:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

31 March 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

First and only edit (so far) of Whatsongisit4578 is him or her complaining about Expewikiwriter's block, while giving immense amounts of detail about the account's history. In http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJamesBWatson&diff=484729048&oldid=484728926 the IP complains about deleting Expewikiwriter's articles. I think it's clear there's likely some strong connection, and likely block evasion. 86.** IP (talk) 19:41, 31 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 following are ✅ amongst each other and likely socks of Expewikiwriter: WilliamH (talk) 04:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged, IP 48 horus. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  07:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

17 April 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

SPA with a single edit which attempts to improve at article previously created by User talk:Expewikiwriter/User talk:Artie04 which is currently at AfD. Edit appears to continue past practice of referencing many passing mentions without substantial in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:00, 17 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

 * Technically ❌. AGK  [•] 17:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

17 April 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

SPA entirely concerned with Jeff Gold/Articles for deletion/Jeff Gold created by User talk:Expewikiwriter/User talk:Artie04 (with a single sandbox edit). Stuartyeates (talk) 06:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

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

An article currently up for AfD (Articles for deletion/Nathan Ballard ) currently has multiple SPAs that have been weighing in to keep the article. Since Expewikiwriter did utilize sockpuppets for this purpose in the past, I'm adding these names to this investigation so they can be checked. It'd be lovely if they were just fans of Ballard, but considering past history I think they should be checked.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

09 April 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Nathan Ballard SPAs

SPAs identified in Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive234:
 * Other SPAs


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

and : SPA !voting in AfD and contesting Prod for NewOrleans.com article created by Expewikiwriter as their only edits. For Wikiwhite2012 naming is similar to the other recent Expewikiwriter socks confirmed previously. I've already blocked Wikiwhite2012 but would like checkuser for backup and to find any sleepers. Valfontis (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note most recent socks were those of Expewikiwriter. It was later discovered that those users (admitted shared account) had changed their name from Artie04. Valfontis (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Added and several other SPAs (Kourtney Karavaggio, Millscollage, and Ballygrand) working on the Expewikiwriter-created Nathan Ballard article. Might not be Expewikiwriter socks, but possibly socks of each other.  may be the article's subject. Valfontis (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * NY-based IP like previously blocked IP, whose only contrib is to protest regarding the notability of Expewikiwriter-created Home Care Assistance. : contesting prods of two "Demon Days" books (now deleted) in a similar way to the other confirmed socks. --see comment by 86.**IP below. Valfontis (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * per 86.**IP, below, specifically, arguing based on how much the article has been used by others in similar style to other socks on the Expewikiwriter-created Remember the Triangle Fire Coalition (now redirected). Valfontis (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Adding for having interest in Nathan Ballard article and for claiming unfamiliarity with someone (the wrong person, I think) regarding the case, similarly to an Expewikiwriter sock (on talk page of now-deleted Kelly Ritz article). Valfontis (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

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


 * I created this under ExpewikiWriter, here's my "nomination": Wikiwhite2012 was blocked as a suspected sock for commenting on an AFD of an Expewikiwriter article. deleted the prod and made the identical argument on the same AFD a few hours before. Given this user's modus operandi, I'd assume there are several other sleeper accounts sitting around. tedder (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Added Jkelsey1, because User:Millscollage also edited Mills College, and that also has a series of SPAs trhat have turned it into an advert. (See the page history.) Most are almost surely too old, though, so I've just included the most recent. If Writertrainer is a separate sockmaster, that seems a likely connection. 86.** IP (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Also added all SPAs from the Expewikiwriter deletion discussions and prods recorded at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive234. 86.** IP (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See the page history for Expewikiwriter and talk to Moonridden girl about moving the page. Valfontis (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Added User:Henrycarl12345, who's only contribution is to complain about the deletion of Scott Gerber in language very, very reminiscent of all the other socks, such as, and other, deleted edits. 86.** IP (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding User:Whereisthemouse, a SPA whose first and only edit is to complain about the deletion of Scott Gerber on my talk page. ‑Scottywong | express _  22:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Added User:BerthaPWatson, only edit is to complain about the AfD of CBIZ. 86.** IP (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Many of the suspected sockpuppets are already blocked, I've blocked most of the remaining ones. Not sure about the SPAs though. ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 23:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you going to endorse this for checkuser? Valfontis (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not a clerk, and this seems to imply that I shouldn't do that. If it makes a difference, I think attention from a checkuser ASAP would be helpful in this case.  ‑Scottywong | squeal _  01:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems weird to mark it in this section. I mean, technically you are the third admin here, but this section is usually for those working on the case. tedder (talk) 01:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Note:Since Scotty isn't acting as patrolling admin, the the preceding comments starting with the latest unindented section were moved from the Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments section. Valfontis (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * 71.246.127.62 is making odd edits in this line. Removed an RSN post asking the sources in one of Expewikiwriter's articles; no other edits. Added. 86.** IP (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I've added one new one: User:203.171.197.33 Ignoring three edits from 2010 (probably someone else), his or her only edit is this one, to the AfD for David R. Stokes, one of the Expewikiwriter articles. This edit references WP:N, and, like many of the other SPAs, does not bother to justify further than a bald assertion of notability. 86.** IP (talk) 03:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Can this be rushed? It's getting towards two weeks, and we have major (probable) socking at WP:Articles for deletion/Nathan Ballard. This has the potential to really screw up some AfDs 86.** IP (talk) 12:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I second the "rush" part. If this is the same group of people socking, then this is really going to drag out a lot of AfDs and make a lot of busy work for a lot of people. It's almost as bad as the amount of socking Stanek does for his books.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Holy...frig. To clear this all up for a CU and to pretty please ask for some sort of IP block:
 * & : !Voting SPAs in article by Expewikiwriter
 * Reinserting quotes like old version by Expewikiwriter
 * ,, per similar !voting and all using "comment" as !vote and quoting sites
 * arguing notability and third party sources claims with direct quoting of sites like the line of evidence above
 * following a sock a day theory at the same relevant time to a Expewikiwriter created article, not including the other possible sock matching inserting SF related content
 * per editing same article as named user above, and knowing advanced wikisyntax when starting
 * Removing prods on Expewikiwriter articles:
 * Removal, on Expewikiwriter creation
 * Removal, Expewikiwriter creation
 * / Removal, Expewikiwriter creation, DavidRStokes Further editing by master; Removal on the same article
 * removing prod Expewikiwriter creation
 * removing prod Expewikiwriter creation; removing prod Expewikiwriter creation
 * removing prod Expewikiwriter creation
 * removing prod Expewikiwriter creation
 * Rebuttal against Expewikiwriter creation at AFD.
 * protesting Expewikiwriter creation
 * Protesting about deletion of one of Expewikiwriter's creation in some fashion:
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * So per all that, I am endorsing to get every single sock that were missing, and confirm this is a sock farm (even though it's half obvious) and to get an IP block. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  23:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note one : --  DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  01:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * We appear to have two separate groups of accounts. I will deal with the ring unrelated to Artie04 first, then the obvious Expewikiwriter socks secondly. ✅:


 * ✅ the same, and of same operator as the above:


 * the same as the first two, but not obviously related to each other:


 * the same as the first two, and related to each other:


 * to be related, but because they are in the same region:


 * ✅ as Artie04/Expewikiwriter:


 * link, mainly based on geolocation:


 * Probably ❌:


 * These accounts are linked by varying probabilities, which makes for complicated results, but I gave these results in exhaustive detail with the assumption that the patrolling administrator will want to consider the behavioural evidence again in the context of this technical data. However, I did block and tag those socks that are strongly linked by checkuser data. AGK  [•] 17:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * With the most likely socks blocked and tagged, I think we can safely close this case AGK  [•] 22:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

01 May 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Removing of a PROD on an article started by Expewikiwriter. Follows the behavioral pattern seen with previous socks. SmartSE (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

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

To assist: Expewikiwriter, in previous investigations, has been shown to use a lot of accounts which do a small action to try and defend his articles against deletion, then disappear. It's a bit awkward to deal with, frankly, but, then, there's few Expewikiwriter articles left, so we'll hopefully get to the bottom of it soon. 86.** IP (talk) 10:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The two accounts are a ✅ match. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 13:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  16:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

04 May 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Standard Expewikiwriter procedure. First and only contribution is an edit to an AfD on an Expewikiwriter article. This is typical for the many socks identified last time. Can we start IP blocking him? Also, any chance of checking a bit more broadly for others? 86.** IP (talk) 12:59, 4 May 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
✅, but a rangeblock is not possible. TN X Man 13:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sock blocked and tagged Salvio  Let's talk about it! 14:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

04 November 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Additional socks, obvious from common editing, and the manner and format of promotional editing at Laura Myntti, Dellamarie Parrilli, who are borderline notable artists at best. Probably also Rene Romero Schuler, and the frank admission of COI at. See Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Tom Dupuis The articles on Mynetti & Parrilli are eligible for deletion as both G11 & G5; Schuler, created before the block,  only by G11. As I rarely do this sort of work, I'd prefer if some other admin checked and did the blocks and deletions.  DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 4 November 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

 * Note. added this report to the archive page; I have moved it back, but I have not had a chance to review the evidence yet.  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 02:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Having now reviewed the evidence, I'd say that is not a sock and neither is, though regarding the latter I still have some lingering doubts, so I would very much appreciate a second opinion.  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 15:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Since no second opinion is forthcoming, I'm closing the case... Salvio  Let's talk about it! 16:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)