Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dundswk/Archive

30 November 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The article Horasis was deleted in two successive AfDs (see WP:Articles for deletion/Horasis (2nd nomination)) before it was once more re-created out of process, this time by a bunch of throw-away single purpose accounts. The way I found out about this (suspicion of paid editing against the first re-creator of the article, for which I have no proof) makes me suspect that there may be related groups of socks in thematically unrelated parts of the project.

I made a related post at WP:COIN Hans Adler 11:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Hans Adler 11:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Response to Alexandria: If the others are connected as expected (Candyisdandy is by far the weakest in the bunch, though, and may be a special case), then I think we can safely extrapolate back to Johnbkidd and Dundswk. But the real point of asking for checkuser was that I suspect similar activities in unrelated areas. Hans Adler 16:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Update: On my talk page and Ukexpat's, Johnbkidd admitted editing on behalf of Horasis "directed by its CEO (his lack of time suggested that)". Now 20 minutes after the account was blocked, started making edits that promote Horasis. The IP is from Zurich, the seat of Horasis. I am not asking for technical confirmation of the connection, but I think someone should block the IP quickly on the behavioural evidence to discourage this behaviour. Hans Adler 22:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Update 2: Now another Horasis SPA has become active: . Hans Adler 22:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Update 3: And another Horasis SPA: . I found it in the history of Frank-Jürgen Richter. Would it be correct to say that in this case the technical evidence is only useful to connect given socks but you can't find new ones or sleepers based on it? Hans Adler 22:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Seems to have resulted in a walled garden of spam - Global Arab Business Meeting, Global China Business Meeting, Global India Business Meeting, Global Russia Business Meeting. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I see two of the accounts have popped up this afternoon - Dewritech and John B Kidd - if this is not sockpuppets, it certainly comes across as organised meat-puppets. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Dundswk and Johnbkidd are likely going to be. No comments on endorsing or not, leaving that up to another clerk. Alexandria (chew out) 14:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * John started editing again, Dund is still for all I know. Alexandria (chew out) 17:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Either meat or sock puppetry here, might as well find out which one it is. Alexandria (chew out) 18:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ the following as matches for each other.
 * The other two accounts listed are . Courcelles 21:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We were checking at the same time. My results are the same. Candyisdandy is also . The rest are all ✅ by technical evidence, so I've indeffed them. AGK  [&bull; ] 21:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The other two accounts listed are . Courcelles 21:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We were checking at the same time. My results are the same. Candyisdandy is also . The rest are all ✅ by technical evidence, so I've indeffed them. AGK  [&bull; ] 21:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The other two accounts listed are . Courcelles 21:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We were checking at the same time. My results are the same. Candyisdandy is also . The rest are all ✅ by technical evidence, so I've indeffed them. AGK  [&bull; ] 21:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

01 December 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.


 * Jeanduboiscom and LimeGreen&purple are additional socks admitted by the user who is currently using for communication. The editor also admitted editing on behalf of the CEO of Horasis and gave his or her IP address (in France) in the same unblock request. Note that the (supposedly complete) list does not include the stale accounts Dundswk and Candyisdandy, which were blocked on behavioural evidence only. (My guess is that they may belong to the CEO.)
 * Dewritech is the editor who previously resurrected the Horasis article and whose text was apparently used as a basis for the last resurrection by Dundswk. Dewritech has given a more or less convincing explanation and seems to be an overall productive editor, although it is of course highly suspicious that they started their career here as a Horasis-SPA. I am listing the user with the others because I am getting the impression that checkusers don't have the time to read what I write and won't give us a negative result on this user if I don't do it.
 * Aquamari and 77.58.144.87 (an IP from Zurich, not France) have continued with Horasis-related edits after the Johnbkidd sock drawer was blocked and presumably motivated by that event or the deletions. The temporal overlaps between the two are striking. Clearly there is at least some form of meat puppeting going on between the two. Hans Adler 14:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! Hans Adler 20:40, 1 December 2011 (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

 * To be clear, I for one do read the comments by the editor who opened the investigation: the checkusers are obliged to ensure that there are good grounds for all checks they run, and as a matter of course that includes judging and verifying the comments made in the SPI submission. Technical results for these latest accounts: Jeanduboiscom and LimeGreen&purple are technically . Dewritech and Aquamari appear ❌ to the recent round of confirmed socks, and to each other. AGK   [&bull; ]  20:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Per the findings I'm closing this case with no action taken. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)