Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Etfcanadian/Archive

19 May 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Already checked, noting for the record. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:09, 19 May 2014 (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

 * Checked based on a request on my talk page and a review of the intersecting edits of the accounts. All accounts are ✅ as very obvious and blatant socking.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged, per technical evidence. AGK  [•] 18:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

08 July 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

For the record. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:55, 8 July 2014 (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

 * ✅ and blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

23 August 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

This user's first edits are to first get autoconfirmed and then follow this up by diving headfirst into a dispute at and, the latter of which was edited by the master account. Also diving headfirst into a dispute with who has been targeted by Etfcanadian's socks in the past. — Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 18:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

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

indeed started out oddly focused on AdvisorShares and with UserNameUnderConstruction as mentioned above, despite laying down claims that he/she just got interested after seeing something on TV about Philippe Cousteau, Jr. (see here for example)

1) Icelandicgolfer has forum shopped attacks on UserNameUnderConstruction: and elsewhere. The obsession fits with etfcanadian.
 * at COIN here on 17:40, 20 August 2014
 * through as SPI filing here opened on 22:56, 20 August 2014
 * in same dif cited above where he/she claimed to be new here on 22:38, 21 August 2014
 * at Wikiproject Finance here on  09:26, 22 August 2014
 * an ANI opened here on 17:46, 23 August 2014

2) about AdvisorShares... At first I assumed good faith, but this edit to the Coustaeu article loaded up negative information about an ETF that AdvisorShares and Cousteau started together that lends WP:UNDUE weight to that article, so that the ETF takes up half the space devoted to Cousteau's career.  etfcanadian and associated socks had done the same thing.

What pushed me over the edge to coming here, was this dif made by Icelandicgolfer to the AdvisorShares article, which introduced a mass of content about litigation that the founders of AdvisorShares were involved in prior to founding AdvisorShares. The litigation was related to something called "Arrow Funds". The addition is pure WP:SYN as far as I can see and the only way I can explain the desire to add it and the level of detail deployed, is that this account is probably another sock. Makes one curious what happened to make this person so determined and angry. And such a pain in our butts Jytdog (talk) 01:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC) (striking undue remark Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC))

If it's not a technical match, the behavior is still pretty circumspect considering he went off into this dispute as his first major edits.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 08:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, since this account was only checked against one account, can it be reopened and checked on the full range? The close seems kind of abrupt... Jytdog (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks . At this point I would not say there is content dispute, as the user in question just started actually editing articles. Before this, the user's activity was all on Talk pages.  My goal was to add support to 's statement of concern that this account may be another sock.  Thanks for unclosing and leaving for further admin work! much obliged. Jytdog (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not a sock puppet of ETFCanadian and I have no idea who he or she is. But I did get my ideas from some other wikipediea user sources to which I admitted in the beginning. I think that one user is making these accusations in bad faith. I said that I am not a sockpuppet and no one has proved me wrong but this situation is unfair and I think that I might stop editing Wikipedia with this account.  If I use a different screen name and just write about my hobbies and not anything related to this current conflict, will that be considered a sock puppet account since it is from the same ip address?Icelandicgolfer (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sorry I know it must be unpleasant.  It is just that within Wikipedia, you are behaving with alarming similarity to etfcanadian.  It is really strange.  The process is not meant to be unkind and is meant to respectful.  So please bear with it. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I said at the beginning of my original posts that I copied some sentances from other Wikipedia users to save time. These users were either copying ETFCanadian or was sock puppets.  That is the similarity.  I saw something in the media before that Wikipedia made new rules about companies not being allowed to edit pages about themselves.  I thought that I noticed a company doing this on Philippe Cousteau´s page.  I didn´t realize that I stepped into to some huge political mess.  This is craziness.  I´ll stand aside and let the fighters fight over nothing.  Thank you. Icelandicgolfer (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what has or has not happened, take the hint that your edits are not welcome on AdvisorShares or Philippe Cousteau, Jr..
 * And this account's behavior is still identical to that of the previous Etfcanadian sockpuppets: obsessing over ETFs and these two articles in particular. Both of them have singled out UserNameUnderConstruction and previous socks have made lengthy section titles, not unlike the present account's behavior. Hell, the sockmaster did it too. This is an obvious behavioral match, even if the technical evidence has come up as inconclusive.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 11:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I only have Tempaccount45 to compare it to, and it appears technically ❌. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  03:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Closing with no action taken per checkuser. Mike V  •  Talk  03:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Checkuser data is only stored for 90 days and the most recent actions for the other accounts are beyond this period. Generally, if there is a possible chance of the accounts being related the checkusers will make a note of it, such as stating that they geolocate to the same area, the user agent data is similar, they're editing on the same range, etc. DeltaQuad's results lead me to believe that it's not the same individual and that the suspect edits should be handled through traditional dispute resolution processes. To allow for a second opinion and the guidance of a more experienced SPI admin/clerk, I've reopened the case. Interestingly, there might be additional information stored in the checkuser wiki per Ponyo., could you compare your results to what is available? Mike V  •  Talk  18:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * A note for future checks, there is a page on the checkuser wiki for Etfcanadian.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Even with CU wiki, it does not change the result. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  19:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * After consulting with a clerk, in light of the evidence I believe this is a case of meat puppetry. A portion of the sock puppetry policy states that, "A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining." As such, I have blocked the account. Mike V  •  Talk  04:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

User's 10th contribution was already at WP:COIN. The contribution was saying that User:UserNameUnderConstruction has a WP:COI. Curiously, User:UserNameUnderConstruction also received unfavorable attention from other User:Etfcanadian socks. Additionally, the Etfcanadian sock farm had a lot of contributions at AdvisorShares, which also happens to be a topic of interest for User:Zwx24f7 Adoring nanny (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

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

I am not a sockpuppet and this has already been confirmed by the user check. User:UserNameUnderConstruction is bringing attention on themselves because they are editing the AdvisorShares page by deleting information with source citations and replacing it with information that is not publicly available.Zwx24f7 (talk) 10:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I want to add one bit of evidence I believe to be telling. As my diffs above show, the EtfCanadian sock farm was all about promoting AdvisorShares. In his very first edit summary, User:Zwx24f7 said that a certain receivable "is a current asset of the company", referring to AdvisorShares. How would User:Zwx24f7 have that information?Adoring nanny (talk) 13:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Adoring nanny, I really don't think you have any understanding of the situation and are just acting in a biased manner against all edits attributed to my username. I said that the money from the judgement against AdvisorShares was a receivable of Fund.com. Where did I get this information? From the following Seeking Alpha article, which was cited:https://seekingalpha.com/article/4091377-fund-com-peculiar-legal-opportunity-activist-catalyst. Some users thought that Seeking Alpha wasn't a good enough source for Wikipedia but the article is based on on legal documents that author found through the public record. That is how I knew that a receivable was a current asset of the company. Fund.com is a publicly traded company and they won a lawsuit against a company that they made a large investment in, AdvisorShares. This is all based on publicly available information and anyone with a basic understanding of business and accounting can understand why the money that Fund.com was awarded in the judgement against AdvisorShares is an asset of the company. It was a receivable at the time of the article and was expected to lead to a cash inflow in the future.

I am not promoting AdvisorShares and I have no idea which of my edits you think point to that. User:UserNameUnderConstruction and other edits made by people without usernames are promoting AdvisorShares with non-public information. This is what I have been trying to correct. If you actually looked at the history of the AdvisorShares page or did a Google search on this company, you would realize that it has been involved in a lot of litigation and ownership disputes since its founding. Someone, who I suspect is a paid employee of the company, is trying to hide all of this information and replace it with unsourced information that is promoting the company. They are also trying to hide the fact that AdvisorShares was certainly at one time, and may still be until this day, a subsidiary of Fund.com.Zwx24f7 (talk) 06:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * On review, User:Zwx24f7 is correct about one thing. He was not promoting AdvisorShares, and neither was the EtfCanadian sock farm.Adoring nanny (talk) 01:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have been correct about a lot more than one thing. The accusation that I was promoting AdvisorShares was completely unfounded and shows how little research you put into your accusations. I am not related to the EtfCanadian sock farm. I don't live in Canada or even North America.  You did a check user and it failed.  You are completely biased and one sided and all of your accusations have been proven to be false.  If you have any conscience, please reverse your edits on the AdvisorShares and Fund.com pages.  Is there a reason why you are trying to protect an editor, User:UserNameUnderConstruction, who most likely has a conflict of interest in editing information about a company they are paid by?Zwx24f7 (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Now you are crossing a line. I didn't have to write that bit about you being right about one thing. A biased person would not have written that. I became suspicious when I noticed that your tenth edit was at WP:COIN. That's it.Adoring nanny (talk) 13:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
This case is. CU declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The last investigation in this case was more than five years ago; suffice it to say that this is doubtful. The evidence presented is too easily explained by coincidences or the passage of time. Closing with no action. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)