Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Flowerman11/Archive

Report date June 21 2009, 17:46 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * Evidence submitted by Palefist

The users in question have very distinctive and similar writing patterns. Arguments and argument style are repeated. They also consistently undo the same edits, giving the same reasons and failing to acknowledge the discussion on the talk page. Their constant reversions despite other editors' attempts to discuss and reach consensus is counterproductive. They also seem to have a CoI as being the owner or employee of Bloomex, the company in question.

Please see: Bloomex, Bloomex edit history, and Talk:Bloomex


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

And no hard evidences- just acusations for any editor who express different opinion from CliffC, palefist and Rees. Alex (talk) 07:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

What is funny that investigation is done by the same editors who created and defended the controversy page.I do not know what should I say. Floralexpert (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think bw213 is actually someone else based on his comments on the Bloomex talk page. The Alexes all appeared right around the time Flowerman11 was blocked indefinitely. Alexflorist only edited during Flowerman11's 24 hour block on May 24, only on Bloomex, then went away. I'm not sure what to think about 3alexflowers, who appeared just after the Flowerman11 block, has some article overlap with at least one other Alex, but has not touched Bloomex. The Alexes who have touched Bloomex all have similar styles. Rees11 (talk) 23:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users


 * Request for CheckUser
 * Requested by Tiptoety  talk 23:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * - Per EdJohnston's comments below. Tiptoety  talk 23:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been following the problems with the Bloomex article since it was first posted at the COI noticeboard in May, and I've issued a couple of blocks. The Bloomex article has been semiprotected due to the COI issue, so the IPs listed above are not a major concern. (They can't edit the article; all they can do is complain bitterly about Wikipedia policy on the talk page). As a practical matter, a checkuser would have benefit by proving malfeasance and give a stronger case for admin action each time a new SPA shows up on the page. Right now we have to greet them and be polite to them as though each one was a serious new editor, unfamiliar with our policies. User:Palefist, the submitter of this SPI, testifies here that Bloomex has employed tricky techniques on the internet in other forums, trying to remove criticism. There is probably enough misbehavior here to justify a checkuser, since there seems to be an ongoing campaign, not just one or two excited individuals. The hard-fought campaign by all the SPA accounts is about three sentences of well-sourced criticism in Bloomex. EdJohnston (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * ✅ the following appear to be the same person, though it seems possible there's meatpuppetry going on:
 * ✅ the following appear to be the same person, though I think this might be more personal oversight than malicious intent:
 * I'm not sure what to make of Bw213; given some of the verbiage they're using, I somewhat expected them to fall into the first group, but they're not matching anyone. Not even using the same connection twice, looks like -- could be hopping about intentionally to avoid detection, or it could be coincidence. – Luna Santin  (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ the following appear to be the same person, though I think this might be more personal oversight than malicious intent:
 * I'm not sure what to make of Bw213; given some of the verbiage they're using, I somewhat expected them to fall into the first group, but they're not matching anyone. Not even using the same connection twice, looks like -- could be hopping about intentionally to avoid detection, or it could be coincidence. – Luna Santin  (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what to make of Bw213; given some of the verbiage they're using, I somewhat expected them to fall into the first group, but they're not matching anyone. Not even using the same connection twice, looks like -- could be hopping about intentionally to avoid detection, or it could be coincidence. – Luna Santin  (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what to make of Bw213; given some of the verbiage they're using, I somewhat expected them to fall into the first group, but they're not matching anyone. Not even using the same connection twice, looks like -- could be hopping about intentionally to avoid detection, or it could be coincidence. – Luna Santin  (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what to make of Bw213; given some of the verbiage they're using, I somewhat expected them to fall into the first group, but they're not matching anyone. Not even using the same connection twice, looks like -- could be hopping about intentionally to avoid detection, or it could be coincidence. – Luna Santin  (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what to make of Bw213; given some of the verbiage they're using, I somewhat expected them to fall into the first group, but they're not matching anyone. Not even using the same connection twice, looks like -- could be hopping about intentionally to avoid detection, or it could be coincidence. – Luna Santin  (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Confirmed socks indef blocked & tagged;
 * I have left Bw213 unblocked (with no prejudice to reblock at a later time);
 * No action taken against the IPs at this time, those can be handled on a case by case basis at this point (per lack of Checkuser evidence, and per EdJohnston comments above).
 * Tiptoety talk 19:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 19:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)