Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Carlang/Archive

07 November 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Carlang and JP22Wiki are both spamming Photographytalk references in the same manner. Just the ref or a simple statement as a reason to post the ref. Additionally: As an expert in photography i see Photographytalk doing "fake reviews", which look like a review, but without any research, mainly reporting manufacturer info and giving opinions like a blog.

There was already a case for Carlang at ANI, in which he said it was a mistake. Tagremover (talk) 12:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

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

It's quite unfair to accuse others of being sockpuppets because they referenced a site that you may not like or agree with. Surprisingly the site has over 270,000 fans on Facebook and an Alexa ranking of around 25,000, despite an obvious disparity in popularity there, it's still a popular site and you would probably find dozens of claims with Photographytalk cited as the source. YuMaNuMa Contrib 12:12 am (UTC+11) Restored at 11.33pm with the comments, I should restore this comment so other editors don't take it out of context like what you have done and attempted to convey. My point isn't because the site is popular, it's correct, it's because the site is popular many editors are exposed to it and may cite it as a source under the impression that it's correct. Also, don't assume what's my style and what's not, we've barely even met. YuMaNuMa Contrib 12:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Also this comment was deleted, due to an edit conflict i think it might make sense to give a late reply: If i am wrong, i will apologize for this checkuser claim. Tagremover (talk) 14:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) "It's quite unfair to accuse others of being sockpuppets": I thought some time, but had reasons enough for a probability. And what else is it for?
 * 2) "a site that you may not like or agree with": Its probably your style to have emotional and therefore biased opinions. I prefer scientific analysis based on facts and best known reasons.
 * 3) "the site has over 270,000 fans on Facebook and an Alexa ranking of around 25,000": I do not care about that: Popularity and facts may differ: Do you think the earth is flat, as most people done hundreds of years ago? And probably because:
 * 4) All links i found in Wikipedia were added by this two users. Probably (i do not accuse them) links on other pages, forums etc. were added in the same style
 * 5) Although i will absolutely not accuse them, it is possible to buy Facebook fans
 * 6) If any page behaves like that, Alexa ranking follows
 * 7) "despite an obvious disparity in popularity there": PLEASE more DETAILS about that. Thank you very much in advance.
 * 8) "you would probably find dozens of claims with Photographytalk cited as the source": In Wikipedia see edits of this two users!

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Please support your evidence with diffs and explain why CheckUser is necessary in this case? Clerks and CheckUsers cannot be expected to establish your argument for you. You must therefore supply diffs to support it. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not really my case. Although i never took any responsibility and duties and - on the other side - received rights and power as an admin or clerk, i already invested much more time in this case as i wanted and a simple editor like me is responsible for.

Its quite difficult here to get clear reasons. Its in the style of the masses of edits, the words they use, the articles they create, the references they post.

IMHO it is necessary that someone invests time and looks at the contribs. I hoped this is the right place.

Reasons:
 * 1) Both users made a lot of "advertising" articles and therefore have a lot of deleted articles. If this sockpuppet fails, someone should think about if this type of users is welcome ?????
 * 2) What mostly concerns me as i often write photographic articles, is the high number of postings of a single ref in the same manner and that these are imho the only two users acting for: Photographytalk. About Photographytalk could be much more negative said as i already done.
 * 3) Diffs JP22Wiki:      and more
 * 4) Diffs Carlang: Too many, over 50 refs added for Photographytalk

I have done much more i am responsible for. Its up to you. Tagremover (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked Carlang as an advertising-only account. I'm pretty sure that this account was being run by a different person to whoever is behind the JP22Wiki account, though there were some similarities. Nick-D (talk) 23:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  16:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've unblocked them as they seem to "get it" in regards to promotional editing, with firm conditions, including a mentor, and I will also be monitoring them. Of course, this has no bearing on the sockpuppet case, which I would recuse myself as already being involved in other aspects.  I would remind everyone that lots of editors are paid or make promotional articles.  Being paid isn't against policy, and the community has been loud and clear on this point.  Promotional/spamming IS, which is what I will be watching out for. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 03:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Closing this for now. If this continues to be a problem, please refile and we will address this again.