Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bayu Antasari/Archive

27 May 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

A little while after I nominate the article Toitures Du St Laurent for deletion, this other user comes by and recreates it at Toitures. I believe that these accounts are linked because the article contents clearly indicate that they are part of some paid editing operation (see Articles for deletion/Toitures Du St Laurent). Gparyani (talk) 06:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: Requesting CheckUser to see if there are any more accounts part of this operation, and to see what the oldest account is. Gparyani (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Hi. *This sockpuppeteer appears in a CU list generated for a different SPI. Does this mean they should be merged? See Sockpuppet_investigations/Nopirosyadi/Archive. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * An admin is needed to review deleted version of Toitures and to tell whether it is similar to Toitures Du St Laurent.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  14:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Close match with grammatical idiosyncrasies clearly showing same/common source. On a quick look I am of mind to block Abimanyu33 and inform Bayu Antasari of our policies againt sock-account, but will wait to hear from Vanjagenije before proceeding. Abecedare (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * If you are satisfied with the evidence, feel free to block him.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. AGFed and left a note for User_talk:Bayu_Antasari.
 * Do you have any alternate socks or puppetmasters in mind. Can you take a look and see if a CU is needed? Abecedare (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * since you already blocked him, I see no reason to run the CU. If provides some reason, I can review the case.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  21:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any other accounts, but since I have strong evidence that this is paid editing, I strongly believe there are more accounts which we are unaware of, and to see the first account (and thus possibly the paid agency). That's why I requested CU. Gparyani (talk) 23:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * - What is that "strong evidence"?  Vanjagenije   (talk)  20:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * See here: . Basically, the way that the article is written matches the patterns of previous paid editing cases. Gparyani (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to run a CheckUser here, so I'm closing the case. Maybe this is a case of paid editing (I see no "strong evidence"), but still, that is not a reason to run a CU per se. We need some evidence that two or more accounts are related in order to run a CU. You may, of course, ask a checkuser to perform a check, but I simply have no basis to endorse a check here at this point.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  20:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * For the record, a Checkuser at Sockpuppet investigations/Nopirosyadi/Archive concluded that the following are ✅ to one another:
 * The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)