Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chernenkaya/Archive

18 July 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Based upon tag teaming and promotional editing behaviour at London School of Business and Finance, each of these single-purpose accounts appears to be controlled by the same person or organisation. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:25, 18 July 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


— Berean Hunter   (talk)  21:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * . for . The rest are  for checkuser purposes. --  DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  03:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked confirmed via CU and the inconclusive via DUCK. Master indef for mass socking.  If the stale accounts start editing again, bring it back here and we will take another look. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  00:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Reopened to make sure that Thiago.kiwi who is confirmed and active is blocked. He has been tagged as blocked but remains unblocked.
 * The deed is done. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   (WER) 22:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

10 October 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Continuing the pattern of editing articles about the London School of Business and Finance and other entities closely associated with it, e.g.: DForDenzel; LCCArts. has not edited for more than a year; last edited in July 2013. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Checkuser has been declined because one account is stale; fair enough. Is it OK to re-request Checkuser for the one that is not? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In response to note by below: for what little it is worth, I agree in the case of . The edit history of  on the other hand is closely similar to that of  and, say,, and fits precisely the description of Chernenkaya: "single-purpose accounts" with "promotional editing behaviour at London School of Business and Finance" - including, in this case, a sandbox article for LSBF's discredited subsidiary, FBT. Checkuser might help to confirm one way or the other if  is willing. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I had indeed completely misunderstood,, I apologise - as you must have guessed, I had assumed that the results of past investigations were somehow stored as documentation. Sorry about that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:21, 15 October 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

 * - Unfortunately there is only one non-stale account here. Rschen7754 23:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The edits by this current pair of alleged socks are not, IMO, obviously inappropriate, and they seem very different from the kinds of edits by the most recent alleged socks from over a year ago. I'm not convinced this is sockpuppetry.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand: there is nothing to compare the one account to, as CU data is only retained for a certain period of time. FWIW, I'm not a CU. --Rschen7754 08:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Per Rich's comment, I'm going to close. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  07:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)