Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bgpmendis/Archive

15 December 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

All accounts are single-purpose accounts pushing minor scholar Patrick Mendis and his books Peaceful War and Commercial Providence. There are a large number of new accounts, mostly aimed at Peaceful War, mostly using "FirstnameLastname" account names. None of the named accounts have any edits unrelated to Mendis. Many edits are promotional in nature, or, like the sole edit from, serve only to prop up a preferred version of an entry.

More than one account makes the same futile revert of the Commons image removal bot:, , or makes the same inaccurate claim about a book cover being public domain:,.

The master account is stale, as are a number of other accounts I didn't list, such as ones with obvious COI usernames like and. The master also outs his identity with his first edit.

Requesting checkuser since this appears to be a long-term issue, with numerous accounts, there's no reason to think that I have dug up all of them. The stale accounts are probably too old for checkuser, but there are plenty of new ones. Hairhorn (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2013 (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
while the following accounts are to  belonging to the second set as well: As usual,. - Mailer Diablo 22:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously Bgpmendis is, so only behavior can determine if the below-mentioned accounts are linked to the master.
 * Technical results appear to show two distance set of socks. The first set are as ✅ to be coming from the same editor:
 * The second set are ✅ to be coming from another one editor:
 * The second set are ✅ to be coming from another one editor:
 * The second set are ✅ to be coming from another one editor:
 * The second set are ✅ to be coming from another one editor:
 * The second set are ✅ to be coming from another one editor:
 * The second set are ✅ to be coming from another one editor:
 * All confirmed socks blocked indef per CU findings. I've semi-protected the article they've been editing, as well. Closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)