Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bernie44/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The master is a smooth-talking paid editor with a demonstrated history of doing one thing and saying another. He and I had what I thought was a good, and good faith, interaction back in December, here. In that discussion, Bernie44 said that they would abide by the PAID policy and the COI guideline, and would put pages through AfC and make edit requests on talk pages. In other words, not edit directly.

In late May editors who work on paid editing began noticing that in the subsequent 6 months Bernie44 had continued creating new paid pieces without disclosure in main space and editing existing articles directly for pay, without disclosure. (see for example this). Bernie44 is now blocked for doing so.

The proposed sock (or less likely, MEAT) account was created in late May, edited Chewy which was a paid product of the master, contested speedy deletion of a paid article of Bernie44's, and showed up at Bernie's talk page to argue in favor of unblocking Bernie44. I asked Godrestsinreason to disclose any connection with Bernie44, and they said no. Bernie44 said the same. Given Bernie44's history of saying one thing and doing another, Bernie44's denial is not credible, and it is beyond belief that a new editor would just randomly happen to focus so purely on topics relevant to Bernie44. Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the CU. The timing and behavior focused on defending Bernie44 and his promotional content remains very hard to explain without some RW non-CU-able SOCK or MEAT connection. Jytdog (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The proposed sock acknowledged working for Chewy (apparently not in PR and "just a low level employee") and was indeffed and banned via boomerang at ANI here. Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

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

I believe this is an accusation made in bad-faith. I also believe there are a few warnings on my page that were added in bad-faith. That being said, I will provide any information necessary to prove my identity. I believe Bernie44's identity is public, as I searched through to see what his connection to Chewy was on my own, in case I actually did recognize him, but I don't. This user's only evidence to suggest that I'm a sockpuppet is editing the Chewy page, and contesting Bernie's block. This user has made a slew of personal attacks against Bernie44 which I found quite jarring and unbecoming of a veteran Wikipedia editor who seems to have an "official" background on Wikipedia, so I left a comment. That's the extent of my association with Bernie44. Feel free to contact me if you need any personal information. I don't have anything to hide. Godrestsinreason (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see Bernie44's talk page, Chewy (Company's) talk page, and my talk page. Sorry, I don't know how to directly link properly yet. Godrestsinreason (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The accounts appear to be ❌. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Closing per above. Sro23 (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

There is no direct evidence linking these accounts, apart from via an IP range which they both crossover with and which exhibits strong indications of undisclosed paid editing. Consequently, and to avoid them learning how to avoid detection, I don't think the evidence should be public, but I have it ready to go in an email for clerks and CUs so please drop me a line. SmartSE (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Please email me the evidence, thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The request for CU was to look for other accounts. SmartSE (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, SmartSE! I'll run the check now...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   20:20, 14 December 2020 (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

 * All previous accounts are, so a Checkuser won't result in any useful data. This will need behavioral investigation...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   18:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No other accounts that I could find. Closing SPI report...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   20:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , does the emailed evidence suggest that Interstatelovebong needs to be blocked as a sock on behavior? GeneralNotability (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , My take on it was that it was interesting, but not convincing enough to block on its own. I also didn't see anything which seemed particularly sensitive, so I encourage  to just post it on-wiki where other people could give their own evaluation.  But that's up to them. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * All right. Archiving. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)