Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Catherinenuel/Archive

Evidence submitted by Smocking
Article UShareSoft created by WP:SPAs Catherinenuel and Jgweir was submitted for deletion. Subsequently, the third account is created and all three SPAs edit the deletion discussion in support of keeping the article. Since Catherinenuel matches the name of UShareSoft's marketing director, it is very likely the other accounts are either the same person and/or subordinates meatpuppeting within the same company (i.e. UShareSoft). Smocking (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Update: Obourdon38, another new account, made his first and only edit by commenting below. Smocking (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

After reviewing edits on the deletion log since the last update, it's pretty obvious that Jgweir has a different style and much better grasp of English than the other suspected puppets, so it's improbable that he's same person as Catherinenuel. I've therefore removed him from the suspect list. He could be a friend or employee, but that (although prohibited by WP:MEAT) is not the subject of this investigation. Smocking (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

It was my first article....Thanks guys :(

Jgweir (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC) jgweir

Comments by other users
Seems to me that the term "evidence" does not have the same meaning for everybody May be because I am not living in the twilight zone myself
 * ^-- The previous comment is from yet another new SPA account as evident from Special:Contributions/Obourdon38. I'm adding it to the list of suspects. Smocking (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

drrrr!!! wrong guess buddy !!!

Seems to me that wikipedia "moderators" 1) do not like to justify their "evidences" 2) are not that moderate

You know there is no shame to be wrong sometimes so I will not blame you Obourdon38 (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all let me point out that I am not a moderator at all. Further: if you just provide a reasonable and substantiated explanation for choosing this particular discussion as your first edit, an administrator or clerk will probably decline this investigation. In fact, I will be happy to withdraw you from the submission suspects if you do so. It's a lot faster than guessing. Smocking (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Endorse closure - At this point it seems more likely they are just several employees working together. I've already submitted this case to the COI noticeboard at Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard and the WikiSpam project at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam, where it is seems more appropriate now. Smocking (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
, either socks or users editing from the company editing in support of each other, regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 15:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this sounds more like meatpuppetry going on here as opposed to straight socking. I'm inclined to close the SPI as-is and let the AFD run its course. The closing admin of the AFD always has the prerogative to give less weight or to ignore commentary/!voting from single-purpose accounts. –MuZemike 05:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawn by filer, marking as closed with no action by SPI SpitfireTally-ho! 19:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)