Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Indiggo77/Archive

20 February 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

All single purpose accounts that have edit warred for the now blocked promotional COI account Indigo77. Indiggo77 had originally tried to create the Indiggo page, which was deleted, and "Paul Lewis Smith" recreated it. and, and /, and / and. I am aware that the IP may be a proxy or rotating, but it is a connecting point for the other accounts. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Important A newly registered single purpose account, who is likely another sock puppet of , kept putting similar promos and spams to Indiggo and actively engaged in edit warring exactly like what Indigg77 did. I just added her account information to the above investigation. And could any admin protect the page again? Thanks. BigCat82 (talk) 11:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' Apparently, certain parties believe that I am a "sockpuppet" for the Indiggo Twins. Your "checkuser" investigation should bear that I am not. This accusation seems to cite entries I made a couple of years ago--with adequate documentation--about relevant information on the Indiggo Twins. I am not a regular contributor here so you'll forgive me if I think the "sockpuppet" accusation is rather insulting. As with the intended purpose of Wikipedia, I have only provided truthful and verifiable information. If it needs additional work, I'm motivated to learn more. What are the motivations of the "sockpuppet" accusers? Paul Lewis Smith (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Normally, when an inactive account gets a message on their talk page, they don't get it.  (Sleeper and meatpupppet accounts, however...) The point of the investigation is to ensure that any sockpuppets or meatpuppets of Indiggo77 are found so they cannot continue to engage in the promotional edit warring that Indiggo77 did.
 * Also, much of this edit uses promotional language, lacks sources for many claims, and most of the sources cited fail WP:RS. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. Ironically the only content backed up by a reliable source in the whole article is "Judge Piers Morgan called Mihaela and Gabriela Modorcea "the worst dancers and the worst singers in the entire competition" and they were eliminated from the competition" and the rest of the lengthy promotional content added largely by Paul Lewis Smith, Victorian09 and Indiggo77 were all based on unreliable self published sources, or sources that had no mentioning and implication of their claims at all. In fact searching various news archives returned almost no result of the twins nor their claims. Non notable articles like this edited by legitimate editors hardly have more than a few sentences. Given the length of the promotional content added by all the suspected users and the fact that Paul Lewis Smith recreated the page after the page deletion, they are all likely related. The article only has 10 to 25 views per day and the few people who are interested in adding such lengthy promotional content to the page are obviously the twins and their related parties. BigCat82 (talk) 05:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
These edits are incredibly old, and whilst I agree that Paul Lewis Smith's sudden reappearance is a little surprising, the 2009 edits don't suggest a clear link between the accounts. Victorian09 and the IP are incredibly, so there's no justification for a checkuser report here. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  15:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I participated at WP:ANI when Indiggo77 was reported there, see the archive here. You'll see at the end of that thread that I outlined why there seems to be no evidence that sockpuppetry has occurred at all, and for those same reasons I'm closing this case as no action needed. It's worth noting that Indiggo77 is currently blocked indefinitely for making legal threats. --  At am a  頭 19:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

29 July 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

"Piers Morgans comments were wicked, racist and unprofessional", "Piers Morgan comment was purely racist", continued attempts to whitewash the article. Both tried to whitewash the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''


 * Seems like clearly Duckish socking. The Indiggo article is littered with it. --Epeefleche (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * is confirmed against the blocked sock (everything else is ). I've blocked and tagged the account accordingly. Although  is also stale, I've blocked per WP:DUCK. .--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  17:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

01 July 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Yet another WP:SPA censoring negative but well sourced coverage. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2015 (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

 * They're a sock from a technical standpoint and making the same disruptive edit as previous socks so I've blocked the account.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  01:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)