Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Etonhousesingapore/Archive

10 November 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

These accounts seem to have an unhealthy attachment to the article EtonHouse International Education Group. After the first account was permanently blocked on username violation grounds, and after creating what were essentially two versions of the same article (version 1, at time of deletion) just a few days apart from one another, a new account emerged and has seemed to take up the cause of the first blocked account by recreating the pages as they were (version created June 30, 8 days after 2nd CSD of G11 grounds). After Draft:EtonHouse International Education Group failed a review the account apparently created it in the article space. Lastly, a near identical set on information pulled from the same source was created by the isp editor above at Ng Gim Choo, which if closely examined is essentially a rehashing of all the previous material with a slightly different take. I think these three go back to the same general source, and I suspect COI issues and an attempt from whoever is running these accounts to keep the pages here as they are. Can someone look into this for me? TomStar81 (Talk) 14:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC) TomStar81 (Talk) 14:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * After a another pass through their editing histories I'm adding User:Gq supersport based on this edit, which looks to be essentially the same type of material added int he same type of fashion as the three already listed here. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * has opined that it is possible that these are staff personnel from the school using there accounts to create and edit the material, which I had not thought of but figured I should note here just in case it affects the outcome of this request in any way, shape, or form. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:17, 11 November 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

 * Unfortunately, checkuser can only be used when accounts have made a logged action within 90 days. After looking through the contributions, I think it's likely that the individuals were affiliated with each other, but I don't think it amounts to sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. Since most of the accounts haven't contributed in a few months (and others in years), I'm not sure if they will resume editing, but if they do, your best bet might be to help guide them through our editorial process and guidelines. Mike V  •  Talk  16:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)