Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Domenico.y/Archive

27 September 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The comments on Talk:Adam Schuck are very suspicious. Jasper Deng (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Hi HelloAnnyong and Jasper Deng,

I am not J2theso and have never been J2theso.

Can you look at the IP addresses in the log please for J2theso? I reside in the USA, in NYC. If the IP address has come from anywhere else i.e. another state or another country, then it will prove that I am not a sockpuppet and that

Jasper Deng's claims are false and uncalled for and he should be that one who should apologise and refrain from commenting.

Domenico.y (talk) 05:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y
 * J2theso's comments resembled yours - but we can never be certain when we make accusations of sockpuppetry.Jasper Deng (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * It's possible, but I can't really rule out meatpuppetry here. It's only the two edits to the talk page for now, so I'm going to close. Relist if it becomes an issue again. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

31 October 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

These two new accounts appear to be a sock/meat with the intent of editing the Davina Reichman article and related ones. Sasha-go made this edit which after it was reverted was done again quite similarly by OliviaBlond here. I note also that both accounts have editing histories that have focused on this article and the tightly related Being Born Again Couture Fashion Show. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Additional potentially important information about connection to Domenico.y and 14.200.69.191 at this diff:. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Following up on the diff I made above, Dom has most recently edited from New York (despite his claims to be elsewhere during this time ): see User:68.175.57.78 (talk - Contribs) in NYC, and Dom owning IP; User:68.173.118.70 (talk - Contribs) in NYC , and Dom owning that IP. There's also a very probable connection between Domenico and User:Afpdb10, so I've added that one above.


 * In short, a different user in Australia seems somewhat likely given the differences in time (2–3 February, 15 February; then 5 October), but coincidence of IP and topic (WP:SPA) indicate collusion (WP:MEAT) at minimum. JFHJr (㊟) 03:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Also added User:Davina.R. Just in case anyone actually is the subject. JFHJr (㊟) 03:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Given the checkuser result, it looks to me like a WP:MEAT/WP:SPA and WP:COI issue in which multiple editors seem to have disregarded policy and warnings repeatedly, all in the context of an article on a subject of borderline notability. Might there be some appropriate administrative recourse in this case even though it's not a technical sock? JFHJr (㊟) 08:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Hi Admin,

I am not sure about Afpdb10 (I think I created the initial article on 28 December 2010, but perhaps a new person overtook it because they don't look like my edits and their edits are minor like [lowercase title] and that’s all, not anything major), but am not the above accounts.

1. Not known to Reichman, I edited the Being Born Again Couture article in Sydney and forgot to log in Feb and signed my name (IP address: 14.200.69.191 in a Sydney IP address). I went to the USA shortly afterward. Reichman edited a few times and created her article but then left it for others to have a go at and I think stopped using Wikipedia. Reichman gave the PC to a Sydney flatmate before she left to go to USA round about June/July. The lady in question was trying to defend Reichman's article on 5 October. The lady in question didn't know how to log in and she made the edit while not logged in, hence the editors thought it was me, but I was already in the USA. Then the lady in question did figure out how to create a user name and so that was fine later that day and she edited under OliviaBlond.

2. I know about this above because there was a public Facebook message about giving the PC to someone. Reichman also has thousands of fans, thousands of real friends and thousands of facebook friends, so it is likely that when her article is AfD, people will defend her.

3. I cannot be in two places at once - being in Australia and flying to the USA is expensive and takes at least 23 hours on a non-stop flight but the pilot has to fuel up at LAX, so that is impossible.

4. Reichman has about 400 fans on Facebook of Being Born Again Couture Fashion Show from all over the world. Check the username and IP address of the users and the Admin will see that they are not me.

5. I was accused of being a sockpuppet before by Jasper Deng here, he said I was J2theso. The Admin looked at the Username and IP address and said it was inconclusive they said it wasn't sockpupperty. I still have not got an apology from Jasper Deng.

6. '''ConcernedVancouverite made my life a living hell with his bullying. The case is here in case anyone wants to see: ''' and still persists in bullying me. The Admin banned ConcernedVancouverite for bullying me for 2 weeks and scolded them. Yet, they are still bullying me now and attacking me.

7. Also, for example, music fans edit a music fan page on wikipedia: they have a conflict of interest, but many people have the same interests and it's allowed. There will be few editors who are interested in absolutely nothing and have CIO's in nothing, as an editor has previously stated. Some editors have edited those articles in question and are simply passionate about them. '''If Anna Wintour referenced her article on Wikipedia, and signed her name, then it's ok, however if Sasha-go did the exact same thing and signed her name, then it's a COI - why? I looked up Sasha-go and she writes for Fashion Future, a legitimate Australian site and she does articles about noteable people. People also do what's best for them and linking to their own articles on Wikipedia pages is a form of that.'''

8. Can you look at the IP addresses in the log please? I live in the USA. If the IP address has come from anywhere else i.e. another state or another country, then it will prove that.

Thank you. Domenico.y (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Case page moved to oldest account, case details updated. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  02:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * . I've merged this case to show Domenico.y as the oldest. Interestingly there was a previous case about him that went nowhere. This time, however, I think the behavioral evidence is strong enough that we can at least run a check. Afpdb10 and Davina.R are stale, but the other three aren't. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

All the non-stale accounts look ❌. Might be meatpuppetry going on here. Elockid  ( Talk ) 04:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The two active socks have gone quiet in the past few days, and the CU data has me thinking twice about this case. I'm going to let this go for now. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

30 November 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

COI editor Davina.R has been pushing for deletion of the article written about Davina Reichman with AfD comments such as this and talk page comments such as  and. Editor OliviaBlond has declared an affiliation with Davina here and is now also commenting on the AfD in a similar manner here. This appears to be a meat, if these are in fact different people, and potentially a sock. In any case, per WP:MEAT, "whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets." ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Related information from previous SPI here Sockpuppet_investigations/Domenico.y/Archive. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

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


 * CheckUser required please

I request a CheckUser http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CheckUser to verify that the accusation of sockpupperty is speculative and baseless, as claimed by. I am resident in the USA and travel extensively.

OliviaBlond is a friend, resident in Sydney and only edits from Sydney, Australia.

I have edited my talkpage and article from San Francisco, New York and various localities in and around Sydney, Australia.

While I was editing in the USA, OliviaBlond was editing in Sydney, Australia.

I am currently in Sydney on business and will return to the USA shortly.

Davina.R (talk) 05:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Davina.R


 * I have blocked Davina R from further editing to prevent unconstructive conflict of interest. As for the other editor, I don't see the point of checkuser; the Duck test is sufficient.  DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Since DGG blocked Davina, Olivia hasn't edited. I'm mildly inclined to block per WP:MEAT, but I'm going to close this for now. Relist as necessary. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

10 December 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets
 * (case originally opened under /Davina.R)


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

In follow-up to the previous sockpuppet investigation where the primary account of Davina.R was blocked, and this account was left unblocked because it had not edited recently. Now that the Davina.R account is blocked, this account is editing again in a conflicted manner as follows:  and. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The Vancouver Sun confirmed that the article on iClothing was factually incorrect and was deleted. The indexing of the article "Have your iPad in hand? Now you need a little black iDress". Vancouver Sun: p. C.3. June 1, 2010. ISSN 08321299. Proquest 2049290071” was deleted from the databases of ProQuest, OCLC and WorldCat and no longer exists.

These articles are not archived. They have been comprehensively deleted in entirety, ie no archived version or any other version exists.

The article Safe, Georgina (19 February 2010). "Designers put their art into couture". The Australian: p. 5. does not exist. Stuart Parker, senior editor of The Australian, confirmed that the article was factually incorrect and was deleted.

OliviaBlond (talk) 04:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC) OliviaBlond


 * Comment @CV: there is clearly a conflict of interest issue here, but are you sure this is the right place to deal with it? If OB is the same person as DR then that would make it abuse of multiple accounts by one person to avoid an indefinite block, which is clearly sock puppetry.  Is there evidence of that?  On the face of it OB might well be, as claimed, a friend of DR concerned to right some great wrong.  @OB: please note that whatever the merits of your claim about content, this is not the place to argue it.  What this page is for is to discuss whether you are the same person as DR, using multiple accounts to evade a block, or whether you are editing so closely at DR's behest as to make you the same for Wikipedia's processes.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 13:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yes. This is the right place to deal with this. Reichman and her real life associates have perpetrated what can only be described as WP:MEAT for some time now. Perhaps Dingle isn't familiar with WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Domenico.y; Olivia registered her account amid accusations of monkeying in the same limited subject and on the same IP as Domenico.y, another COI editor who fought equally tooth and nail to keep unverifiable claims in and verifiable claims out. Besides, this was relisted at the invitation of an admin. So yeah, correct forum. Same meatery, and I have no idea why this hilarious person wasn't blocked earlier. JFHJr (㊟) 17:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I wasn't familiar with that, since it wasn't mentioned. If there is evidence, by all means bring it forward.  But CV's original complaint failed to do that.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The complaint stated behavioral grounds on which to block per WP:MEAT. For some context, the direct IP and subject connections previously raised can be found summarized here and at the archives for Dom, linked above. The editors involved seem to be different persons within the article subject's circle of real life friends, some even editing from the same places. JFHJr (㊟) 18:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That fills in some of the gaps -- thanks. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see also.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 21:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: Ah, the fun continues! Olivia is not just Davina's friend -- she's Davina's concerned friend.  She is also actually a budding Wikipedia superhero, as her "bête noire is when people dispute and disrupt notable articles."  BEWARE, oh you disrupters of marginal BLPs!  Well, not all BLPs, but one BLP in particular.--Milowent • hasspoken  14:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at Talk:Davina Reichman and Articles for deletion/Davina Reichman (2nd nomination) there certainly has been disruptive behaviour by a number of editors.  But how does that observation advance this discussion?  Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There's really no discussion to have beyond someone doing to checkuser work and reporting on it.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think checkuser is necessary per WP:DUCK. This is a fairly clear WP:MEAT and perhaps even a WP:SOCK.  But in any case, a meatpuppet is to be treated the same. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Per the disruption, and noticing that Davina.R isn't stale (which it was during this SPI), I ran a check. Davina.R and OliviaBlond are ✅, and technically interchangeable. CheckUser obviously cannot distinguish fingers on the keyboard, but for Wikipedia's purposes these accounts should be considered as belonging to the same person. I also find a relationship between and Davina.R . WilliamH (talk) 13:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously there are multiple accounts being abused here to achieve the same goals, so I've blocked OliviaBlond. Domenico hasn't been used in a month, so I'm leaving it alone. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This should be merged to Sockpuppet investigations/Domenico.y. As far as I'm concerned, Davina.R = OliviaBlond = Domenico.y. WilliamH (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * moved by DeltaQuad, SpitfireTally-ho! 19:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

02 January 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

WP:DUCK: editing in the same style/manner, on the same article, producing the same text. London's caption and category additions, as well as claims of sourcing correction are the same as Domenico: caption, fashion/design categories, sourcing claims by Dom, same claims by sock/meatpuppet Olivia. I have no doubt that Davina Reichman and/or her associates contacted the newspaper to demand a factual correction, but the method used here to update the information seems socky or meaty. I also think London's other edits were simply attempts to avoid WP:SPA accusations. JFHJr (㊟) 22:07, 2 January 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

 * - It seems likely on behavioral grounds, but I'm endorsing to clarify. The master isn't blocked yet, but if this is confirmed again, we should probably look into that. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Request (non-admin) : If the checking and/or closing admin could, please verify against other identified accounts: User:Davina.R, User:OliviaBlond. I think, given the involvement of unconfirmed socks, this might be at the least an instance of WP:MEAT by an WP:SPA account on a subject of very marginal notability (see ; ; ; ; ) JFHJr (㊟) 06:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Technically to . To reiterate, Davina.R = OliviaBlond = Domenico.y as far as I'm concerned. There are ways to make an editorial correction, but deceiving the community with multiple accounts is not one of them. WilliamH (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've blocked and tagged Domenico.y as a sockmaster, and blocked and tagged Londonbridgebridge as a suspected sock. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)