Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Craigsender/Archive

31 August 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

At the article entitled Copyright Clearance Center three accounts appear to be repeating the same unhelpful edits. According to User:Lquilter (on the CCC talk page ) Among other things, they changed the substance within referenced sentences, without changing the references; the references did not support the new edits, but no other references were added (diff). User:Lquilter then reverted (diff), because the references were now inaccurate, and he/she (User:Lquilter) posted on the suspected sock's talk page (diff).

Next, two new single-page editors appeared: (User:Charlotte dg) and User:Beantown55) who have made basically all or almost all of the same edits, word for word. See: diff of Charlotte_dg and Beantown55's 7 edits from today, compared with Craigsender's edits of 8/26.

The content of the edits: in both sets of edits, certain comments (referenced) that are unflattering to CCC were removed and replaced by CCC boilerplate promotional language.

Both User:Lquilter and I (User:Steve Quinn) think that it is clear we're dealing with sockpuppets who may also be employees of Copyright Clearance Center (the topic and title of this article). User:Lquilter beleives that they are editing in good faith attempting to correct what they see as factual errors on the page, but now there are some pretty serious concerns with conflict of interest and sockpuppetry policies. And more importantly, the sock-editors do not seem to understand the basic principle underlying referencing in general scholarship (as well as here at wikipedia): That a reference for a factual assertion actually needs to support that factual assertion. And that you don't change the facts, without changing the reference (adding new references to support new facts, if needed).

User:Lquilter made additional pertinent comments in the last paragraph seen within this diff. User:Lquilter also posted wikilinks related to this case, see diff:

I generated this complaint mostly from User:Lquilter comments on the CCC talk page, using most of his/her words verbatim, rather than entirely write my own orginal comments. User:Lquilter has sufficeintly described the situation, and I agree with his/her description. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Steve Quinn (talk) 02:13, 31 August 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

 * These are very likely not sockpuppets. They do, however, appear to have a conflict of interest. Closing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)