Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Betfairmole/Archive

28 November 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

The suspected socks are single purpose accounts editing Betfair, where there has been an edit war. There are similarities in the edit comments on that page, with accusations of WP:COI and that courtsiding only has happened with Betfair. All three accounts have edited on User talk:Eachway whith somewhat similar language and without signing their edits. Sjö (talk) 06:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Betfairmole is not ChristopherPenk or Cadamarteri2007, you can see that from IP address logs if you check them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristopherPenk (talk • contribs) 08:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

There has been at attempt to follow Wikipedia rules, and cite that Eachway has been breaking them by trying to censor a clearly sourced section. Multiple people are unhappy with what he has done, and the reason similar reasons have been given is to try to give reasons which best fit the Wikipedia rules and regulations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristopherPenk (talk • contribs) 08:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not Betfairmole, you can see this if you check the IP logs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristopherPenk (talk • contribs) 08:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

SJo says "There are similarities in the edit comments on that page" - I was trying to keep to the exact Wikipedia guidelines, and quoting what seemed the right reasons why clearly sourced material should be allowed, whilst censorship with the seemingly odd reason given by SJo shouldn't be.

"with accusations of WP:COI and that courtsiding only has happened with Betfair" - It has only happened with Betfair. It isn't an accusation. Google it for yourself and see.

"All three accounts have edited on User talk:Eachway whith somewhat similar language" - There is only a limited amount of space to put reasons, if you want longer reasons allow more space to write more?

"and without signing their edits" - What does this mean? I don't know how to sign an edit, I don't know if other people do or don't know how to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristopherPenk (talk • contribs) 10:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

JackHudspith and ChristopherPenk are the names of a current and former employee of Sporting Data. Neither of them were aware of these posts. It seems like a remarkable coincidence if these accounts belonged to two different users. 217.35.74.121 (talk) 11:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Forgot to log in prior to posting above comment... Eachway (talk) 11:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - See, , and . King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅, ❌ to above:


 * Eachway could be related, not fully conclusive. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  05:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * All blocked. The two groups are probably meatpuppets of each other anyways. Closing. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

10 February 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

On 2nd December 2014 a Sockpuppet investigation closed five accounts, Betfairmole and four others. His edits were to the WP page article for Betfair, all edits appearing to be a vendetta against a number of people employed by Betfair around the period 2007-9. On 10th January user Rolfeguy appeared and made a number of edits to only one WP article: "Betfair" over the course of 5 days. Since 24th January the activity has moved to user Petefox1.

Neither account has ever edited any other WP article except Betfair, and neither account has a user page. The edit activity of both is virtually identical to Betfairmole and his sockpuppets:

For example here is an edit by Betfairmole on 25th November 2014: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Betfair&diff=prev&oldid=635441769

A virtually identical edit by Rolfeguy on 15th Jan 2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Betfair&diff=prev&oldid=642544124

And yet another virtually identical edit by Petefox1 on 4th February 2015. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Betfair&diff=prev&oldid=645599603

I haven't made a sockpuppet report before, so I don't know if this is the right level of detail. I hope it is sufficient for it to be obvious.

In each case the edits fall foul of WP:BLP, the tone and choice of language is evidently WP:NPOV and many of the assertions made are either not cited at all or aren't supported by the material cited WP:SYN.

Thanks in advance. DJBumfun (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2015 (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

 * Reported socks blocked and tagged. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

29 July 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

New editor has appeared making mostly Betfair-related edits, repeatedly adding the same kind of negative information that Betfairmole and his previous socks were fixated on. In particular, he previously added the paragraph about the UK report on in-play betting (search down the page for "Tony Clare"), in virtually identical form: Toohool (talk) 07:50, 29 July 2015 (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

 * Admin action needed - (see:  and ). Should be indeffed.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  00:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * DUCK per Vanja. ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  00:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC) ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  00:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

05 August 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

New user has popped up out of nowhere just days after the previous sock was blocked, re-adding the same material to Betfair and making the same personal attacks on the talk page that previous socks have made. Toohool (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Toohool (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2015 (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

 * Although I think it seems very probably. I think maybe a quick CU would help. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Technically it looks to be . In this situation, I believe the behavioral evidence helps out quite a bit. Unfortunately a block of the underlying IP isn't possible, but I will go ahead and semi-protect the article to help stem off further sockpuppetry. Mike V • Talk 16:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

23 September 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

New SPA created to continue Betfairmole's apparent vendetta against Steve High, including claiming that he'll be arrested by the FBI. In his very first edit, he repeats the baseless allegation that another editor (presumably me) is Betfair executive Tony Clare, as was previously claimed by confirmed Betfairmole sock Petefox1. Toohool (talk) 18:11, 23 September 2015 (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

 * - Please, compare Ed Wray with previous socks and .  Vanjagenije   (talk)  20:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * is at best to the two comparison accounts. The passage of time makes a technical match difficult. The locations of the three accounts is identical. Frankly, the behavioral evidence is so compelling, I'm not sure why the technical evidence matters.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sock, case closed. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  04:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)