Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chaklalajob/Archive

16 September 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Two new contributors solely editing with regard to the same articles: Ready Flowers and Cool Roofing Systems/ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cool Roofing Systems. Clearly promotional in intent. Also clearly familiar with the workings of Wikipedia: Chaklalajob has posted at Requests for page protection, asking for the promotional edits at Ready Flowers to be protected. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2013 (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

 * It's that they are the same, although the result could easily be considered just . Checking is very difficult since one solely used a webhost. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Why are they using a webhost? That sounds suspicious. Blocked master 2 weeks, sock indef. Rschen7754 09:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

13 December 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

In early November, the article Machel Waikenda was deleted, as I recall, as a result of a sockpuppet investigation. I do not know the name of the user who created that article. On December 1, User:Marthacaps created Machel T Waikenda with this edit which appears to be an earlier version of the Machel Waikenda article. Before creating Machel T Waikenda, the user had completed 30 mostly small and easy edits. The user has made no edits since then. On December 7, I asked the user if there was an explanation for the recreation of an article which had been deleted. I have received no response. There was an attempt to create the article at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Machel Waikenda by User:Martthewz. I suspect that Marthacaps is a sockpuppet of the user who created Machel Waikenda, or otherwise has a conflict of interest in editing the article. SchreiberBike talk 06:02, 13 December 2013 (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

 * The master is User:Chaklalajob (see Sockpuppet investigations/Chaklalajob). I've blocked and tagged this account as a sockpuppet of Chaklalajob and deleted the article. This case will (I imagine) need to be moved to Sockpuppet investigations/Chaklalajob, leaving for a clerk so I don't mess anything up. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

20 February 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Dear SPI staff:

I suspect that User:Derekarabia is a sockpuppet of User:Chaklalajob for three reasons.

1. It is clear that User:Chaklalajob sockpuppet User:Trinitysky worked on Articles for creation/Amanda Cerny. Well, later on, Derekarabia created Amanda Rachelle Cerny.

2. I have looked at a few of the edits done by User:Derekarabia. This useless edit fits with the pattern of all the useless edits done by User:Chaklalajob sockpuppet User:Amandacelles. Plus, IIRC, the edits by Derekarabia also lack an edit summary, just like those by Amandacelles.

3. Smoking gun: At &lt;http://web.archive.org/web/http://www.freelancer.com/u/chaklalajob.html&gt;, scroll down to the first mention of Amanda Cerny. You can see that someone requested that someone recreate an article about Amanda Cerny and that Freelancer.com user Chaklalajob accepted the job.

I suspect that User:Wikianoldie is a sockpuppet of Chaklalajob for three (perhaps weaker) reasons.

1. S/he marked Amanda Rachelle Cerny as reviewed a mere two minutes after it was created.

2. If someone was creating their first user account, why would they call themselves an oldie? They should call themselves a newbie.

3. This account has also done useless edits: such as this one.

I suspect that User:Schmidthdoff is a sockpuppet of Chaklalajob for three reasons.

1. This is Schmidthdoff's fifth-ever edit. Hmmm: it's about a corporation, plus it shows good understanding of template usage. Schmidthdoff is presumably a sockpuppet of somebody.

2. Smoking gun: At &lt;http://web.archive.org/web/http://www.freelancer.com/u/chaklalajob.html&gt;, you can see that someone wrote "I need some help updating the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filemail" and Freelancer.com user Chaklalajob accepted the job.

3. Schmidthdoff has also done a bunch of useless edits. Here are two examples.

It would be great if you could also please CheckUser all three for sleeper socks.

Thanks for your time! —Unforgettableid (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2014 (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

 * - Enough evidence for a check, but not enough to block all of the suspects. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Derekarabia, Wikianoldie and Schmidthdoff are ; I can't access data for Chaklalajob and their socks to try linking those three to them. Materialscientist (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll address each editor one at a time. I think that Derekarabia is an obvious sock per WP:DUCK; they recreated an article previously created by one of Chaklalajob's socks, and of course there is the information you pointed out showing an acceptance of the job. I think that Schmidthdoff is not quite as obvious, but the editing at Filemail is far too much of a coincidence to dismiss in light of Chaklalajob's acceptance of the job offer for that article. I believe that Wikianoldie isn't related though, I just don't see a clear connection. Their edits are all over the place, and not narrowly focused as an SPA like the other two accounts. I think that their editing of the Amanda Rachelle Cerny article was a coincidence. I'm blocking Derekarabia and Schmidthdoff but leaving Wikianoldie alone. --  At am a  頭 17:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I'm blocking Wikianoldie also. One thing that I neglected to do was look at the editor timeline. Wikianoldie and Derekarabia were created on the same day, within a half hour of each other. Wikianoldie edited from 19:39-19:45 that day, then stopped, and then Derekarabia edited from 20:00-20:10. Then both editors took a break. The next day, Wikianoldie edited from 6:16-7:28, then stopped, then Derekarabia edited from 7:36-7:46, then stopped. I'm seeing similar editing patterns between the two accounts, consistent with an editor using one account, then switching to the other. Per this revelation, I'm also blocking Wikianoldie. --  At am a  頭 18:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

15 April 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

I came across this user because they'd created a page for Anton Tagliaferro, which had previously been created/edited by User:Chaklalajob. Because Chaklalajob is known for sockpuppeting, this might be him trying to come in under some new socks. I'd recommend looking for sleepers as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am also in the process of looking through the previous edits to see if anyone has re-created any other articles from Chaklalajob's history and will add them if they seem to be likely sockpuppets. I am finding evidence of paid editing but in some instances such as User:Groupclr I'm unclear if this is just a new person the companies paid to come edit or if they're a sockpuppet. My suspicion comes from the fact that Groupclr created their account a few days after the page's deletion in February 2014, as by that point Chaklalajob had been blocked for quite a while. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I have been asked to participate in this discussion due to past interactions with one or more named parties. Please give me a few days to report what I find.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  14:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * davidwr I would kindly appreciate your council in this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Groupclr (talk • contribs) 17:23, 15 April 2014‎
 * See below. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  17:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Tokyogirl79 How dare you go about slandering me. I am willing to give my driver license, which is not for just eating sushi. If you are in US i am willing to meet !!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Groupclr (talk • contribs) 17:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've moved this from the patrolling admin section. In any case, the problem here is that while I can't guarantee that you're a sock, I still had enough suspicions to want to have you checked. If you aren't a sockpuppet then I do apologize, but I still want you checked. Think of it this way: once you've been cleared you'll be able to say without a doubt that you've run through the gamut if anyone else were to ask. I do have to respectfully decline a meeting in person, though. I do live in the USA, but I'm not really comfortable meeting people off Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I went back and looked at my non-deleted-edit interactions with these 3 editors: davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  17:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The editor explained his username to my satisfaction on my talk page back in Feburary or March.
 * On February 25, Groupclr stated a WP:Conflict of interest in topics related to Lloyd Bancaire ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADGG&diff=597039810&oldid=597029844 diff]). Connected contributor templates are already in place on Talk:Lloyd Bancaire and Talk:Lloyd Bancaire Foundation. For the sake of completeness, I added one to File talk:Lloyd Bancaire Corporate Logo.jpg. In the same edit that he declared his conflict of interest, he refered to himself as "we."  That may be just a figure of speech or it may indicate multiple people are editing under that account (which is a big no-no, by the way) .  Either way, it does not by itself imply any connection with any other editor named in this (or any other) sockpuppet investigation.  Any warnings or other action taken against Groupclr purely as a result of his edits in these articles should be done outside the scope of this investigation.
 * also edited Lloyd Bancaire. The named editors may have other interactions among themselves on articles that I did not edit.  As with any SPI, it is possible that two or more editors are each working on behalf of another unnamed third party (such as an employer or client) but are unaware of each others' relationships with that third party. (Off-topic editorializing for the benefit of any paid editor reading this: Being blind-sided by an accusation of being a "sock" of another editor who also happens to be editing on behalf of the same person or entity is one of the risks that those who edit on behalf of others take.)
 * Before proceeding with a checkuser, an administrator should check the history of the previous version of and the history of now-deleted pages created by the named editors, the alleged sock-master, and other known-socks to look for other interactions.  He should also look at other significant edits made by the known-socks and compare them to those of the suspected socks and check for WP:DUCK-ishness.
 * Lloyd Bancaire, (now a redirect), and the now-deleted page  are all likely within the scope of Groupclr's declared COI, and any February- and early-March promotional or promotional+copyvio edits in these articles by him should be taken as the work of an editor unfamiliar with Wikipedia's COI and copyright rules, not by itself as evidence of sock-puppetry.
 * Separate from this SPI an uninvolved administrator should look through the recent editing histories (including deleted edits) of all 3 named editors and if it appears they are still editing in ways that show disregard for Wikipedia editing guidelines and practices, the administrator should formally remind them to follow the rules. This does not apply to editors who previously edited in violation of the policies and guidelines but no longer do so.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Deleted history of Anton Tagliaferro shows link between Chaklalajob and Goldenhman. Deutsche Standard shows link between Llsilver and Groupclr. Link between the two pairs is topic area only. Need CU to confirm and run sleeper check as well please. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We have two groups here. Group 1, ✅ from one another:
 * Group 2, ✅ to one another:
 * The two groups are ❌ to each other. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, it wouldn't surprise me if Group 1, at least, is related to one of the many promotional editing farms. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Group 1 blocked as socks of . As for group 2, I blocked Llsilver and warned Groupclr. Tiptoety  talk 18:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Group 2, ✅ to one another:
 * The two groups are ❌ to each other. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, it wouldn't surprise me if Group 1, at least, is related to one of the many promotional editing farms. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Group 1 blocked as socks of . As for group 2, I blocked Llsilver and warned Groupclr. Tiptoety  talk 18:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Group 2, ✅ to one another:
 * The two groups are ❌ to each other. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, it wouldn't surprise me if Group 1, at least, is related to one of the many promotional editing farms. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Group 1 blocked as socks of . As for group 2, I blocked Llsilver and warned Groupclr. Tiptoety  talk 18:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Group 2, ✅ to one another:
 * The two groups are ❌ to each other. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, it wouldn't surprise me if Group 1, at least, is related to one of the many promotional editing farms. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Group 1 blocked as socks of . As for group 2, I blocked Llsilver and warned Groupclr. Tiptoety  talk 18:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The two groups are ❌ to each other. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, it wouldn't surprise me if Group 1, at least, is related to one of the many promotional editing farms. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Group 1 blocked as socks of . As for group 2, I blocked Llsilver and warned Groupclr. Tiptoety  talk 18:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)