Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gallery history/Archive

Evidence submitted by Atama
The editor "Gallery history" was brought to my attention from a report at the conflict of interest noticeboard. The editor admits to being employed by Maureen Paley and is editing on her behalf. They have also edited the Wolfgang Tillmans article on behalf of the article subject. The promotional nature of these edits and the declaration of working for the article subjects prompted both the COI noticeboard report and warnings at the editor's user page. When the COI noticeboard report was posted, the editor was informed of the report, and invited to participate. The editor has not communicated in any manner outside of edit summaries, and after the last edit made by Gallery history, a new editor named "Eastendarchive" was created and made a similar edit to the Maureen Paley article to remove sourced controversial information. The similarity of names between "Gallery history" and "Eastendarchive" makes me suspect that the latter is a sockpuppet of the former created to avoid scrutiny after receiving warnings about their behavior and COI. Gallery history has been editing the two articles since last year, and I suspect that another editor, "RosenGallery", might be another sockpuppet, as they've only edited the Wolfgang Tillmans article and the username is similar to Gallery history. --  At am a  頭 01:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to add a blurb to give my intent here... I don't want everyone blocked as sockpuppets/master. If there are sockpuppets, I'd like them blocked and to give the main account a warning that they need to use one account (and not to share that account, that could also be occurring). I think that the editor's violation of policies and guidelines is due to unfamiliarity with Wikipedia; despite their long time editing, they don't have a lot of contributions and I don't think they have much experience so they need help, not a block. I just want to know what I'm dealing with first. --  At am a  頭 21:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Certainly all is not well here, and I've done my share of complaining. However, (i) Eastendarchive likes to remove while Gallery history likes to add -- though it's true that both like the edit summary "[noun (phrase)] information". (ii) At least once, Gallery history has attempted to communicate (bringing no reply that I notice). -- Hoary (talk) 11:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * They seem to have a very similar SPA agenda. (same edit made on the same day).  Ty  14:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Atama's comment above about possible socking out of lack of awareness of wiki policy. We need to stop any multiple accounts, but encourage the editor to contribute positively.  Ty  00:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
–MuZemike 18:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ except for the stale RosenGallery. --jpgordon:==( o ) 18:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The two newer accounts have been blocked. I left RosenGallery and the IP alone due to inactivity. I also left an explanation/warning on the main account's talk page. TN X Man  18:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)