Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Como12345/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

On Talk:Kirkland & Ellis, there have been two editors who have declared that they work for Kirkland & Ellis, and. Both of them have <10 edits. have declared conflicts of interest, and (beyond their COI declaration) only seem to be interested in editing the Kirkland & Ellis page.

In an edit request made on 17 June 2021, Como12345 specifically requested that content sourced to a research article be struck from the article diff, see "Request 3".

I granted the requested edit, albeit for a reason that differed from the rationale given by Como12345. My granting of the request was reverted by, which led to me creating an RfC on whether or not the contested content should be included.

During the RfC, on 28 June 2021, made their only two edits to Wikipedia. The first was to declare that they have a COI with Kirkland & Ellis. The second was to !vote in that very RfC that we should remove the material from the article.

Given that they have both commented that they have a COI being that they say they work for the firm, and they've both pushed to have the same content removed (and taken non-trivial time to analyze the research paper in question), I'm highly suspicious of WP:MEAT. I am also requesting a checkuser to see if they might be operated by some technically connected entity. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:12, 3 July 2021 (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 COI was adequately disclosed both on the userpage and in the RFC; while we can consider this meatpuppetry in some rather broad sense, any scenario that involves more than one disclosed COI editor on the same talk page could probably be construed as meatpuppetry, and blocking them all would not be helpful. I do not consider this sanctionable given that they're upfront about it; the closer should be able to weigh this adequately. I'm sure they're operated by a technically connected entity given that they are probably sitting in the same office; CU would probably give us likely or even tallyho, but that doesn't really get us anywhere. Closing without action. Blablubbs (talk) 08:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)