Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Carolemallory/Archive

Evidence submitted by Jeff G.
"Probable copyright violation and conflict of interest (self promotion). Compare http://www.phoenixbooksandaudio.com/author/94/ which may be copyright violation. Present article image looks like companion image from same photoshoot: Same clothes and trees in background. Only difference is hair tousled for different shot. This article has history of image policy violations with deletions on 3/9/2010, 3/17/2010, 6/16/2010, and now this one. See also violation notices at Commons:User talk:Robin m, and note filename similarity to previous deletions: Carole_mallory_1.jpg, Carole_mallory_2.jpg, and now Carole_mallory_3.jpg, all uploaded by same user. Article appears to be largely written by subject, who edited under own name on 6/24/2009 and made many subsequent edits as user Merry123, user Amouse123, and user 98.114.34.145. Edit similarities were stylistic (including consistent use of capital letter spelling of all names of magazines and plays/films) and knowledge of highly-detailed and dated personal and career information and obscure trivia — in earlier versions of article — long before her book was published in 4/2010. Odea ( talk ) 12:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)" http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Carole_mallory_3.jpg&oldid=45442079  —  Jeff G.  ツ  23:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Response to HelloAnnyong: Odea thought there was enough to pass the duck test, and I passed on the information because I thought it looked duckish. If the subject of that article or her agents or publicists contacted our OTRS team or there was more input at, that would shed more light on the situation. Perhaps WP:COIN would be a more appropriate venue for discussing this issue. —  Jeff G. ツ  14:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
I'm not sure what you are looking for with this case. These accounts haven't edited in a year, which means they are for checkuser purposes. TN X Man 14:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * - Waiting for response from Jeff G. I also don't see what we can do with this case as they're all relatively inactive, and the IP hasn't edited in over three months. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * - This case cannot be acted upon a checkuser as all accounts/IPs are  Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 20:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed that editing styles are sufficiently similar to indicate that these are all the same editor. However, because of the time since the last edit, I find nothing really to gain from a block. Accordingly, I'm only soft-blocking the alternate accounts and leaving the master account unblocked. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 20:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not archiving this so a second look can be made Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 20:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Shirik, with the overlap seems possible that user also forgot password, so hardblock would be over the top. -- DQ  (t)  (e)  00:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)