Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Carlihumphries/Archive

10 January 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The two accounts have edited one and only one article: Mulberry (company), both times creating an identical article. A few weeks ago I reverted the article to a version which was more encyclopedic; today, I see that it's returned to the previous non-neutral, unencyclopedic article written like an advertisement as before. I believe 217.35.90.153 is a sockpuppet of carlihumphries. Paris1127 (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks anyway though, especially for the advice. Paris1127 (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2012 (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
I'm sorry, but checkusers do not generally disclose connections between IPs and named accounts. TN X Man 19:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In addition, unexperienced editors often forget to log in, or do not really care. I did not really look at the content of the edits, but if they look like they came from the same person then I would recommend to simply treat them as such. But it's not inappropriate use of multiple accounts, I don't see intent to mislead, deceive, or disrupt. You have already reverted the changes (I wouldn't have called it vandalism though), if you notice them returning and re-introducing inappropriate content, try to make them aware of the problems (at least in edit summary, if possible also on Talk or User talk page) so that they know why their changes are rejected: In this case I'd say because the wording was a non-verifiable, spammy copyright violation. Amalthea  15:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)