Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Babylon1894/Archive

20 August 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Note: While I suspected sock puppetry from reading the articles, I used evidence (that I verified),from a COI complaint another user that I found when doing a Wikipedia search of the usernames that I suspect of sock puppetry. I'm not recreating that complaint though. Just used some arguments from it to save time and not have to reinvent the wheel. I first filed a COI complaint but another user told me to file a suck puppet one instead or in addition to it.

An account with the username “AdvisorShares” made an edit before it was banned on Feb. 14, 2014. There’s a large possibility that this was a paid employee of Advisorshares trying to put an ‘official’ entry, which is just firm marketing material. This account was quickly blocked by IronGargoyle.

These two usernames seem to be sock puppets of the same person: UserNameUnderContruction which edited the “Advisorshares” page and “ETFinvestor” which edited the Fund.com page. They deleted basically the same sentence on May 26 and May 27 respectively. On the Advisorshares history it took away 331 bytes in the history and on the fund.com page it took away 337 bytes. Another possible sock puppet of this same user include, Babylon1894.

Icelandicgolfer (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * where are the administrators for this case? That is why I alledged bad faith. This case that I mentioned is most likely a instance of sock puppets and-or conflicts of interest.  Yet no admins investigate it.  Someone falsely accused me of becoming a sock puppet and they were proven wrong.  They made further investigations and were proven wrong. My complaint has been ignored.  You can not tell me that this isn´t bias.Icelandicgolfer (talk) 12:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Icelandicgolfer is more than likely a sockpuppet of Etfcanadian who in the past has been disruptive on the articles he is claiming there might be issues on.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 18:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not an other user in the sense of this page, but I would like to defend myself from these accusations. If my comment belongs somewhere else, feel free to move it. If you are against my freedom of expression, delete it.


 * I can understand why you could possibly think that and why you would want to contribute to upholding wikipedia's rules. Yet, what proof do you have behind these allegations? I'm glad that in this post you did not say you were certain that I was this same user like you did in some others.  I mentioned in my original post that I found some of my ideas from other users (although not ETFCanadian). I looked after your comments and realized that some of these users were banned for copying from ETFCanadian.  However, I am just a crazy viking from the middle of nowhere Iceland and have no conflicts of interests with anyone.  If you can look me up and find that I am not, do so and prove me wrong.  Anyways, I know in my heart that that I am not guilty of what you accuse me of.  ETFCanadian might have broken some rules, but I am not Canadian.  I am just a crazy viking who cares about the environment and human rights and found out about Advisor Shares because of their partnership with Philippe Cousteau. You have no proof otherwise.  Have a good day! I mean it.  We vikings don't hold grudges.  You shouldn't either if you want to be happy in life!Icelandicgolfer (talk) 22:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Stop pinging me with the yo template and drop the charade.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 04:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
. As far as I can tell, this report was filed because the named accounts disagreed with the filer. The filer has been blocked, not for sock puppetry, but for meat puppetry. There's a lot of socking that's going on in the articles that are at issue, and it isn't easy to wade through it all, but this has all the earmarks of a bogus report.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)