Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CMCreator900/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

SamHamilton's only edit was to reinstate a genre change made by CMCreator900 minutes after it had been introduced and reverted. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

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

This is not me. I do have a few other accounts but they are not for malicious use. I only made them because I decided that more than once I wanted to change my name. Let me know what else you need. CMCreator900 (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please list them here. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Are we ready to close? Quinton Feldberg (talk) 00:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * SamHamilton and CMCreator900 are technically ❌ (but see below). However...
 * CMCreator900 is ✅ to be socking as . Yunshui 雲 水 21:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, interesting. Further investigation reveals that SamHamilton is a ✅ match to, a user whose primary interest was the correct application of the "Christian rapper" label - a subject which also seems dear to CMCreator900's heart. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that, based on this behavioural similarity, I reckon there's actually a match between the named accounts - both are taking care to mask their RL location, which threw me initially. Blocks handed out there also, and given Guesswhosbackbackagain's choice of username, some of their editing areas and other technical evidence, I think there's a strong likelihood this is our old friend the dog and rapper vandal again. Yunshui 雲 水  21:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * How strong is the technical link to WP:LTA/DRV? Based solely on behaviour I have my doubts about this being the same person. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, "strong likelihood" may have been a bit hyperbolic, I guess - there's crossover in the IP ranges they use, but both use very large ranges, so it could just be coincidence. D&RV shows up on quite a few CU checks. Yunshui 雲 水 08:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * In that case, I'm going to close this here. There are enough behavioural difference that I'm inclined to say this is not D&RV. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Eerily similar talk page messages. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 2nd diff is me copying an email from the master to my talk page. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * He did this. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And this account was created at 9:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * There isn't a whole lot to go on here, so I won't completely rule out sockpuppetry, but there isn't enough to act on either. There are enough little differences in the writing styles that I'm inclined this isn't the same person. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

This had been reported before by the Quinton F. sock, and blanked, but I came across it independently. I was originally requesting CU, but I'm fine with a clerk assessing behaviorally first now to see if we need it, since the previous CU came up with accounts trying to mask their identity, which means it might not be helpful.

Similarities include fascination with rappers and creation of perfectly formatted articles in the initial creation. Also note that both users use some variation of the edit summary 'made page' in their creations, with CMC using it on Jeff Montalvo and WolvesS using it on Smokepurpp and Tay-K:

CMC: ; ;

WolvesS: ;  ;

They also share similar work styles of large promotional updates to music articles.:

CMC: ;  ;

WolvesS: ;

WolvesS explanation of the relationship is here:

There is a direct intersect on the article Jason Boyarski, which WolvesS created.

CMC editing it while in WolvesS' userspace CMC removing the needing review banner from the mainspace page created by WolvesS:

In the last diff, included a professional headshot originally uploaded to en.wiki by CMC on en.wiki under the claim of having reached out to the subject to get permission (admin only link). This file was later uploaded to commons under OTRS permission as File:Jason Boyarski 4.jpg, which suggests a professional relationship going on and likely coordinated UPE between CMC and WolvesS. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I seriously cannot give you any more explanations but for things like Tay-K, Smokepurpp and Soundcloud rap, I generally did those because if you look through the revisions on pages like XXXTentacion, a large chunk of the page was actually written by me, including a part saying how he was a soundcloud rapper. I'm very invested into this movement and me and CMCCreator as friends get on with our mutual interest in rappers (though you won't see him editing the same type of rappers as me.) I generally try to make pages for underground rappers such as Tay-K, Smokepurpp, Ski Mask the Slump God, Joji, I made a huge addition to Rich Chigga and I've been editing drafts for Lil Pump since the beginning. I don't see how this is evidence but I've always said "made the page." I'm a lot more active than CMCCreator and I made large, LARGE edits and even buy books so I can edit wikipedia (look at Gucci Mane's wikipedia page.) I really don't see how we're comparable seeing as he comes to me for help which is where our relationship generally stems from and Jason Boyarski was just a page we worked on together as I've stated. (which is why you can find CMCCreator attempting to contact me on my talk page and receipts of our conversations via email. WolvesS (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I'm inclined to believe WolvesS' story, since there is some amount of interaction between the two. Additionally, there are enough differences in terms of writing style and divergent interests that this looks like to different people to me. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Could we at least get a CheckUser then? Unfortunately I think there is enough overlap here to warrant that my reason for not asking for a CU was because I thought the behavioral evidence was borderline duck. If you don't think it is, thats fine re: duck blocking, but I'm not particularly comfortable with it being closed outright. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll ping Yunshui down here as well to correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain CheckUser isn't going to turn up anything here. CMCreator900 was checked on 9 October. WolvesS would have shown up in that check of they were technically related. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fine. CU will miss things on occasion and when it is a COI/promo issue where there are attempts to hide technical information you'll sometimes get accounts that turn up on other checks. The talking to yourself thing is also not uncommon in this area as well, something you don't often get in vandal/troll cases, which is why I'm also not particularly convinced by that defense. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, I'll note this here, since filing this SPI, WolvesS has declared as a paid editor. has pointed out that other editors within this business have helped him on his contributions . This behavioral pattern is important to note, and I think further casts doubt on his explanation above of simply being two accounts talking to one another. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ran a CU off the back of Tony's suspicions to be sure, but WolvesS is technically ❌ to the other accounts here. Yunshui 雲 水 08:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Yunshui. see Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard for background here that has developed from last night. I'm seeing a pattern through different articles of related paid editors helping out WolvesS by reviewing, which matches the pattern we see here, undeclared. What we know from that COIN noticeboard is consistent with the CU findings above and I think makes a strong case for undeclared meatpuppetry, and I think the case should at the very least be reopened for additional review by another clerk. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This should be settled at WP:COIN. The investigation there is already much more in depth, so studying it here would only be a needless duplication of efforts, since the question of meatpuppetry is largely incidental to the case at WP:COIN. If there was UPE, the questions of meatpupptetry is largely moot since either would require an indefinite block, and if there is none, then there is no meatpuppetry. As for a second evaluation, that will happen one way or the other before the case is archived. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)