Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dottie S Block/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

This account created this page And their last edit was March 12th. They disclose that they were paid here on March 8th. This accounts first edit was March 7th and was too the other accounts page. Appears the first account is trying to switch from disclosed paid editing to undisclosed paid editing. Have blocked the second account. The first account says they run a paid editing business. I guess the question is are their any other sleeper accounts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

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


 * Excuse me, why am I getting notifications that I am mentioned on here when I logged into my Wikipedia account? Who and what is this about? Sir Sputnik zzuuzz  I'm trying to clarify this but if I may be so blunt - I am extremely disturbed with the accusations by this Doc James    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacaligirl (talk • contribs) 02:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Do either of them have any recent deleted edits? I'm assuming that's where the legal threat happened since I'm not seeing it. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Threats are by email. But block also based on undisclosed paid editing / promotional editing. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * - In that case, I don't think CheckUser is likely to uncover anything given only one edit in the last three months. Please block the master account indefinitely. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * They are running a paid Wikipedia editing business. I guess the question is have they moved to another account. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's possible of course, but given the relatively narrow scope of their interest, it's fairly easy to just check every article they've edited. So I did that and turned up another stale sock in form of, but nothing to suggest recent socking. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Their interested is whatever someone pays their interest to be. They have adverts out on the wider internet. How is that a narrow scope? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * They've consistently and exclusively edited the same short list of articles for about a year. That's a strong pattern of behaviour that tells me if there are more socks, they will have edited these articles. There's nothing in these articles to suggest they exist. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean there is nothing on WP to support that they have further socks? What about this admission that they were paid. Plus the fact that you can find that they are still advertising paid editing. And no further edits are from these accounts? The assumption that they have closed up shop is going to be false. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * - Given that was registered to remove the UDP tag from Marklen Kennedy, we now have evidence that they're continuing to evade there block and the discussion above largely moot. Please check to confirm sockpuppetry.  Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * CU throws up no connections to other accounts. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * To clarify, there's no connection between Lacaligirl and Nikki10038, or no visible sleepers, or both? Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Both. I'm not going to say it's impossible that it's the same user, or even that they're probably unrelated, but the technical data isn't there to say there's a link between any of the above users, or any others. From a technical point of view it's somewhere short of -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks. Looking more like the initial work was done by a new editor who was doing freelance work (disclosed). And than a professional firm picked up the job afterwords. CU of course is not magic pixie dust. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Given the CU result and Doc James' analysis, there doesn't seem to anything left to do here. Though I would recommend keeping a very close eye on Lacaligirl for COI concerns. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)