Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cabritos/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
There is heavy SPA vote stacking at Articles for deletion/Ricardo Santos Silva and some also at Articles for deletion/Aethel Partners. I'm filing this as Cabritos for now as I believe that to be the oldest account given that their talk page dates back to 2009. All are casting votes with the exact same edit summary of 'Reply' and all are voting to keep this article. All have a sole interest in Ricardo Santos Silva and Aethel Partners. See. Please run CU to confirm that these are all definitely the same person and to check for sleepers. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @SpideroneI am the original PeacefulJack. I have made almost 500 contributions. Why am I a suspected Sockpuppet? Does this make any sense? You say my solely interest was on the last articles I created. That is obviously not true. I am very upset and disappointed. I was and I am a good contributor. PeacefulJack2 (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2022 (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

 * - -- RoySmith (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * All accounts ✅ -- RoySmith (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've gone back and forth on this a few times (after the appeal of PeacefulJack2 in 28 March 2022) and can't quite come to a conclusion, so relisting this for another CU to take a look at. Ignore PeacefulJack2.  And it's obvious that all the rest of these are throw-away socks, and Cabritos is an obvious sleeper.  The real question is whether  is the same person as the rest of those listed in this day's case based on behavior.  -- RoySmith (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * My guess before this moved here was meatpuppetry. The piece I don't get is arguing to keep when  is the supposed company rep who says they all want it deleted. There's some shenanigans going on around these topics. If PJ isn't confirmed to be a sock, happy to have my unblock of "2" overturned.  Star   Mississippi  18:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting results. My view is that we should leave these accounts blocked. From a technical standpoint, I agree with RoySmith's original determination that all of the named accounts above are ✅ (there is a margin of error for Cabritos, but I would still describe that account as at minimum). I would also point out that the following accounts appear to be ✅ as well (especially to Puglia1999 and Ricardosantossilva):
 * It looks like the user was trying to remember old accounts that they had created from long ago and was trying to log into them. Acorvelay is interestingly tagged as a CU-confirmed sockpuppet of Pmorley1: see Sockpuppet investigations/Pmorley1, where there were observations that paid editing was involved in that case. From a behavioral standpoint, I think it is quite suspicious that PeacefulJack returned from about a year of inactivity with the sole focus of creating and preserving articles related to this Aethel Partners investment firm, and then suddenly, all of these throwaway accounts start showing up. In combination with the technical evidence, I believe a block is well within discretion here. I think the way that we've currently tagged the accounts is reasonable enough for archiving—that Pmorley1 case is so old and so tangential to this case that I'm not sure it's worth merging this case there. Closing. Mz7 (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like the user was trying to remember old accounts that they had created from long ago and was trying to log into them. Acorvelay is interestingly tagged as a CU-confirmed sockpuppet of Pmorley1: see Sockpuppet investigations/Pmorley1, where there were observations that paid editing was involved in that case. From a behavioral standpoint, I think it is quite suspicious that PeacefulJack returned from about a year of inactivity with the sole focus of creating and preserving articles related to this Aethel Partners investment firm, and then suddenly, all of these throwaway accounts start showing up. In combination with the technical evidence, I believe a block is well within discretion here. I think the way that we've currently tagged the accounts is reasonable enough for archiving—that Pmorley1 case is so old and so tangential to this case that I'm not sure it's worth merging this case there. Closing. Mz7 (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like the user was trying to remember old accounts that they had created from long ago and was trying to log into them. Acorvelay is interestingly tagged as a CU-confirmed sockpuppet of Pmorley1: see Sockpuppet investigations/Pmorley1, where there were observations that paid editing was involved in that case. From a behavioral standpoint, I think it is quite suspicious that PeacefulJack returned from about a year of inactivity with the sole focus of creating and preserving articles related to this Aethel Partners investment firm, and then suddenly, all of these throwaway accounts start showing up. In combination with the technical evidence, I believe a block is well within discretion here. I think the way that we've currently tagged the accounts is reasonable enough for archiving—that Pmorley1 case is so old and so tangential to this case that I'm not sure it's worth merging this case there. Closing. Mz7 (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like the user was trying to remember old accounts that they had created from long ago and was trying to log into them. Acorvelay is interestingly tagged as a CU-confirmed sockpuppet of Pmorley1: see Sockpuppet investigations/Pmorley1, where there were observations that paid editing was involved in that case. From a behavioral standpoint, I think it is quite suspicious that PeacefulJack returned from about a year of inactivity with the sole focus of creating and preserving articles related to this Aethel Partners investment firm, and then suddenly, all of these throwaway accounts start showing up. In combination with the technical evidence, I believe a block is well within discretion here. I think the way that we've currently tagged the accounts is reasonable enough for archiving—that Pmorley1 case is so old and so tangential to this case that I'm not sure it's worth merging this case there. Closing. Mz7 (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Blocked and tagged Woodpeek, since that account recently edited. Mz7 (talk) 09:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
He admits that he's a sock. Pretty obvious sock and ban evasion. Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (Talk) (Contributions) 16:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I blocked as obvious sock, and Twinkle ran amok when I filed Sockpuppet investigations/PeacefulJack2 when I meant Sockpuppet investigations/PeacefulJack for a sleeper check. That should be merged and handled here especially if there are more socks. Star   Mississippi  17:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - I'm taking another look at my original check results. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Closing—see above. Mz7 (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Obvious sock is obvious, but in case of any sleepers Star   Mississippi  17:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Misfiled, this should please be merged with Sockpuppet investigations/Cabritos where I'll leave a note. Star   Mississippi  17:25, 28 March 2022 (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

 * - Either fix up the merge templates to properly point to Cabritos, or given that it's already essentially merged, maybe just G6. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Case merged via the cut-and-paste route. Closing. Mz7 (talk) 09:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)