Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Healthy2010/Archive

Evidence submitted by Delicious carbuncle
The IP in question belongs to Rodale Inc, according to WHOIS. All accounts listed primarily edit articles related to Rodale Inc, its publications, or its staff. These accounts have added a large number of external links into the body of articles (see Men's Health (magazine) for example). In that article, there are currently 22 links to Men's Health sites in various countries listed in the external links section. I suspect that blocking the IP will put an end to disruptive and promotional editing.

After I added the Conflict of Interest tag to Men's Health (magazine) and started a discussion on the talk page, new account Dcahole appeared to remove the tag. Note that Dcahole could be interpreted as "Dc" (the initials of my user name) + "ahole" (asshole). Checkuser is requested to confirm that this is the same user and not merely an otherwise uninvolved editor with poor impulse control. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims. I have never contributed to this article before and was looking at it - refreshed my screen - and the Conflict of Interest notice splashed across with nothing in the article suggesting any problems. At invitation I asked the editor to explain what was wrong with the article and they threatened to open an investigation, they never said what was wrong at all. Go the f%^$ ahead and investigate. I am gobsmacked at the hostility shown both towards myself and the other editors accused of somehow causing problems. If they are associated with the magazine they are adding content that would in every way help an encyclopedia, I am stunned at this progression which feels much like a witch hunt. I have no clue who they are and I have no association with them. I do have a problem with self appointed guardians of knowledge beating away those who are here to explain more about the subject. Do you want people to improve articles and update them or does hostility and suspect of every new user help things? Sorry for the brashness however this whole turn is upside of reality and hostile at best. If someone could explain anything that was added to the article that is false or wrong in any way please illuminate these issues.

Comments by other users
I urge a CU on this one - if the organization's got someone doing this, we need to stomp on it right quick. If it's not them, we need to not apply excessive force. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * - Per georgewilliamherbert. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 02:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sefit07 is . The other two accounts are ❌ to each other. No comment on the IP. TN X Man  13:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't think any action needs to be taken right now, per CU results. T. Canens (talk) 04:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)