Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Franchiseguru/Archive

Report date July 13 2009, 15:54 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Jerem43

On the article master franchise the user Franchiseguru, which appears to be a single purpose account, edited the article and added links to a commercial site; I found the site to be a commercial link, I compared it to the original article I sourced the article from and removed the duplicate information, removed any other patently coi information and finally removed the link. These two IP user then restored the article to the previous, unedited version and restored the links; I again removed them. This has gone on several times and the IP users have kept restoring the COI version with spam links I believe that this user is using the page for self promotion and is now editing from a ip account to restore the deleted link. Jeremy (blah blah) 15:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC), updated 00:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

As the user from the two IP addresses listed above, I fully encourage any investigation. While it can be confusing that one person might be using two IP address, it's not unusual. I certainly never attempted to claim that I was ever two separate users. If I had the ability to always edit from the same IP, I would certainly have no issue with that. I am NOT, however, the user Franchiseguru, and have never claimed to have been.
 * Comments by other users

As this is a Sockpuppet investigation, there is no need to explain the details of the discussion. Wikipedia does a fine job of recording the history if there are any curious observers. I will be happy to continue the discussion on the master franchise page.

For the record, I would dispute the facts as stated by Jarem43. For this evidence, I feel no need to submit anything more then the atricle's history.

Also, please note the directions for this page state, "The evidence needs to be quite strong, not just a vague belief or assumption." Jerem43 says, "..I believe.." as his only statement of evidence.

Finally, this was a matter of discussing the content of an article. Based on nothing more then a disagreement, Jerem43 requests an investigation. Even if the facts as Jerem43 stated were true, there would be little need for an investigation as an commonly agreed on outcome was achieved.


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions

Nothing very actionable here. I will ask Franchiseguru to edit with his account if possible. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 00:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)