Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ConteRaff/Archive

23 June 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Resumption of advertising campaign for Barbera coffee/Caffé/Caffè (see speedies logged on puppetmaster's talk page or previous AfD for full list) Bazj (talk) 08:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ...and recreated Barbera Coffee. Bazj (talk) 12:39, 23 June 2015 (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

 * I already blocked BBBM10 before seeing this (the spamming would have been enough by itself). —Cryptic 16:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Already blocked, and tagged. Closing the case.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The contributions since January 2016 in adding Barbera Coffee Company and Cafe Barbera look to be a straight continuation of ConteRaff's previous efforts to advertise... Barbera Caffè S.p.A., Cafè Barbera Franchise, Barbera Coffee, Barbera Caffé, Barbera Caffè, Franchise Café Barbera, Barbera coffee, Barbera Coffee Co. while carefully avoiding any of the previously used article names.

The prior edit history of the sock's account, and the long hiatus through 2015, suggest the account has been hijacked. for (talk)  08:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 's assertion that he is a meatpuppet undertaking paid-editing seems consistent with the evidence. for (talk)  14:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Navigating Wikipedia is a challenge, so please pardon if I have posted in multiple locations to try to resolve this issue. I tried to respond appropriately to the charge that the account had been hacked. Somehow your response from 21 June never reached me. Possibly Google's overly aggressive treatment of emails from unknown contacts. I finally received some emails today, notifying me that the Barbera Coffee Company page has been deleted. Cafe Barbera's fate hangs in the balance.

I carefully read the definitions of a meatpuppet undertaking paid-editing. First, let me make it clear I told the representatives who approached me for help with writing their Wikipedia page (one a representative for Barbera Coffee Company and the other for Cafe Barbera) that I would only write articles for them if they provided the type of information Wikipedia expects.

Second, I had no knowledge that they had attempted pages before. The Cafe Barbera representative both told me they had expanded their market globally and wanted to have an English Wikipedia page to reflect this. No one in the company spoke English natively, and they felt they needed assistance. My search for prior pages came up negative. I agreed to the job, stipulating that the I would adhere to Wikipedia's standards, even if that meant the page could not be published. I did what I believed was due diligence and then took the job knowing I risked non-payment for my work.

After I completed the Cafe Barbera page, I was approached by a representative from the Barbera Coffee Company. I asked for documentation to support their notoriety in the coffee roasting market.

I am no meatpuppet. I am an independent writer. Yes, I was paid, but as I understand the page you've directed me to, paid editing was never approved as a policy. Please do not demand I meet a standard which is not commonly agreed upon.

Further, a meatpuppet by Wikipedia's definition appears to be someone who has been brought in to manipulate the opinions of the other editors. While I have argued for the validity of the sources provided, I have in no way tried to manipulate anyone. I was an editor on Wikipedia long before ConteRaff showed up.

I am concerned for the quality of Wikipedia as well. I agree advertising is completely unacceptable! I have worked very hard to avoid any appearance of advertising in my writing. I was trained in journalism and strive to use those principles. I have demanded proof to support their claims of notoriety of both Cafe Barbera and Barbera Coffee Company. However, I have also observed that the level of notoriety demanded has risen considerably since 2010.

I can understand the importance of this requirement because I am sure the costs of hosting a database the size of Wikipedia have grown with the size of the wiki, especially when so many SEO firms recommend every business out there get a Wikipedia page. If I disagree with the level of the demand, that is my personal opinion. If you see any evidence in my communications that I am trying to manipulate opinions, please share your reasons with me.

I am not asking you to reduce the standards. What I am asking is that you recognize some individuals don't have the skills to write a Wikipedia page and need to hire someone who speaks English as their first language. Sometimes its that they just can't wrap their minds around the concept of "no advertising". I try to act as a strict barrier to every attempt to add content of that type. Believe me, every client tries!

I'm always open to feedback on how to improve my work as an editor of the Wiki. Please reconsider deletion both Barbera Coffee Company and Cafe Barbera. If a company has made the effort to meet the editor's requirements, it seems that a reversal to 'draft' would be appropriate. This prevents the appearance of Wikipedia being punitive when a company tries to add an article about their business. Writingasaghost (talk) 02:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * If I had been directed to the right page I would have realized I had violated Wikipedia's policies. I don't know if the COI policy was in place when I first became an editor and created my first article. I don't remember reading it, however it has been almost seven years. Now that I realize I was in violation of Wikipedia policies, I have done my best to resolve the error. Please see my user page, which I didn't realize I needed to create. I have also added attribution at the top of all the pages where I was the primary contributor. My deepest apologies.


 * I'm not sure how a corporation is supposed to handle the COI rule. Obviously, there is a COI, however doesn't the standard imposed for notability and the opinions of other editors ensure COI doesn't rule the final output? Writingasaghost (talk) 04:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I have always logged in from Vancouver, WA, so you should be able to identify my location is not the same as the other person who submitted articles before.

It is typical for my account to show low activity. Since I wrote my first article on Wikipedia (2009?), I have written articles for Ahmed Bedier, Philip Schram, Buffalo Wings & Rings, Barbera Cafe, and Barbera Coffee. I may have edited Nastel Technologies as well.

I'm not very active. I had one article for Barbera Caffe in draft, which I couldn't figure out how to delete once I started it. After discussing it with the company, we chose to go with the English rather than Italian for the business name to reflect the expansion of their direct coffee sales into the US and the UK. They have two company divisions. The restaurant division, Barbera Cafe, and the coffee sales division, Barbera Caffe (Italian) and Barbera Coffee (English). If they choose to have an Italian page, someone else would have to write it. I don't speak Italian.

I don't know who submitted the articles previously. I am an independent writer who is hired occasionally to assist individuals and/or businesses in writing their Wikipedia page. Philip Schram recommended me to Elio Barbera because of the work I had done for him and Buffalo Wings & Rings. I did my best to ensure the proper references were obtained for both, and to remove all "salesy" material.

To have multiple accounts would be a violation of my personal code of ethics, even if it weren't against the rules here. I hope that your investigation will confirm my integrity.Writingasaghost (talk) 04:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I have read the definition of a meatpuppet. I was an editor on Wikipedia, long before I tried to resolve the issues with this company's pages. Yes, I was hired to try to resolve them, primarily because English is not their first language. In this whole process, I have been seeking to represent Wikipedia's requirements, so the company provides the right information. That is not manipulating the system. Nor have I brought in like-minded editors to manipulate the system. I don't personally know a single editor here, especially this ConteRaff.

I have also read the paid-editing page. However, the proposal that "paid editing" be banned appears to have failed, so applying these rules to the situation acts as though they are rules, instead of guidelines under consideration.

However, I have no issue with adding a notice to my user-name talk page. I don't even have an issue with people knowing I was hired as a writer to write Barbera Cafe's (restaurant) and Barbera Coffee Company's (coffee roaster) pages. I had no idea this would make me a suspect of manipulation, etc. However, I believe I do fall under the description "For example, paid editing of a talk page is generally acceptable," even if the WP:PAY/paid-editing guidelines were approved rules for Wikipedia.

Whenever I've taken a job to write a page for a client, I've done this recognizing that many people don't have the skill to develop a Wikipedia page without help. Nor do they have the techonological skill to figure Wikipedia's interface out.

I have never attempted to 'manipulate' the editorial process. However, I believe I have the right to express my personal opinion on this topic.

BTW, I have not been paid to discuss this. It's been on my own time, based upon the principle that I do my best to do good work.Writingasaghost (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I stumbled upon the help desk. They sent me to Conflict of interest. I never realized that this was such an issue. I have added a user page to resolve the COI issue. Please reconsider the charge of my being a meatpuppet in light of this. It was not intentional. I was defending myself with inadequate information. I truly appreciate the person who took the time to address the violation, instead of treating me like I was a troll. My deepest apologies for being naive about this issue.Writingasaghost (talk) 05:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
This SPI has been open for over two months with no action. The alleged puppet hasn't edited in over one month. Closing without prejudice.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)