Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeremy112233/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets

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

-- Amanda  (aka DQ) 21:12, 13 September 2016 (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

 * may have additional socks as I ran my check a considerable time after theirs and found some were stale at the time I checked. On hold pending that result. Due to the extensive sockpuppetry, I have indeffed the master. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 21:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * may have additional socks as I ran my check a considerable time after theirs and found some were stale at the time I checked. On hold pending that result. Due to the extensive sockpuppetry, I have indeffed the master. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 21:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * may have additional socks as I ran my check a considerable time after theirs and found some were stale at the time I checked. On hold pending that result. Due to the extensive sockpuppetry, I have indeffed the master. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 21:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * may have additional socks as I ran my check a considerable time after theirs and found some were stale at the time I checked. On hold pending that result. Due to the extensive sockpuppetry, I have indeffed the master. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 21:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * may have additional socks as I ran my check a considerable time after theirs and found some were stale at the time I checked. On hold pending that result. Due to the extensive sockpuppetry, I have indeffed the master. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 21:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * may have additional socks as I ran my check a considerable time after theirs and found some were stale at the time I checked. On hold pending that result. Due to the extensive sockpuppetry, I have indeffed the master. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 21:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * may have additional socks as I ran my check a considerable time after theirs and found some were stale at the time I checked. On hold pending that result. Due to the extensive sockpuppetry, I have indeffed the master. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 21:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * may have additional socks as I ran my check a considerable time after theirs and found some were stale at the time I checked. On hold pending that result. Due to the extensive sockpuppetry, I have indeffed the master. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 21:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * may have additional socks as I ran my check a considerable time after theirs and found some were stale at the time I checked. On hold pending that result. Due to the extensive sockpuppetry, I have indeffed the master. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 21:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * may have additional socks as I ran my check a considerable time after theirs and found some were stale at the time I checked. On hold pending that result. Due to the extensive sockpuppetry, I have indeffed the master. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 21:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * may have additional socks as I ran my check a considerable time after theirs and found some were stale at the time I checked. On hold pending that result. Due to the extensive sockpuppetry, I have indeffed the master. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 21:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * may have additional socks as I ran my check a considerable time after theirs and found some were stale at the time I checked. On hold pending that result. Due to the extensive sockpuppetry, I have indeffed the master. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 21:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * may have additional socks as I ran my check a considerable time after theirs and found some were stale at the time I checked. On hold pending that result. Due to the extensive sockpuppetry, I have indeffed the master. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 21:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * may have additional socks as I ran my check a considerable time after theirs and found some were stale at the time I checked. On hold pending that result. Due to the extensive sockpuppetry, I have indeffed the master. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 21:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * may have additional socks as I ran my check a considerable time after theirs and found some were stale at the time I checked. On hold pending that result. Due to the extensive sockpuppetry, I have indeffed the master. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 21:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * may have additional socks as I ran my check a considerable time after theirs and found some were stale at the time I checked. On hold pending that result. Due to the extensive sockpuppetry, I have indeffed the master. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 21:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * may have additional socks as I ran my check a considerable time after theirs and found some were stale at the time I checked. On hold pending that result. Due to the extensive sockpuppetry, I have indeffed the master. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 21:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * may have additional socks as I ran my check a considerable time after theirs and found some were stale at the time I checked. On hold pending that result. Due to the extensive sockpuppetry, I have indeffed the master. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 21:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * may have additional socks as I ran my check a considerable time after theirs and found some were stale at the time I checked. On hold pending that result. Due to the extensive sockpuppetry, I have indeffed the master. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 21:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * may have additional socks as I ran my check a considerable time after theirs and found some were stale at the time I checked. On hold pending that result. Due to the extensive sockpuppetry, I have indeffed the master. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 21:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * may have additional socks as I ran my check a considerable time after theirs and found some were stale at the time I checked. On hold pending that result. Due to the extensive sockpuppetry, I have indeffed the master. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 21:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * These ✅ accounts, which are now stale, turned up in my checks:
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Confirming that there are no other outstanding accounts, to my knowledge. --kelapstick(bainuu) 06:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Marking as closed, as both DoRD and I have reviewed per Amanda's request. --kelapstick(bainuu) 06:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The content of both deleted articles was substantially the same. It would appear to me that there is quite obviously some socking going on there. What do you think about this? Shirt58 (talk) 10:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * On 27 Apr 2012 created the article Willie Lora here
 * On 15 Nov 2016 re-created the article Willie Lora  here

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

 * ❌ – different operating systems, different geolocations. Closing. Katietalk 13:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

These are all accounts who are mostly active tagteaming on Biocentric universe and Talk:Biocentric universe. What's more, it appears that they are now vote-stacking WP:Articles for deletion/Biocentric universe (2nd nomination). It looks like a sock farm of some sort, but this could just be meatpuppetry or external collaboration on fringe articles that we sometimes see. Anyway, since the main account was blocked for prolific sock puppetry, I thought it prudent to bring my concerns here. jps (talk) 09:59, 6 December 2016 (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

 * - Katietalk 13:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * These accounts are to the master:


 * Josophie and Jordgette are ❌. Katietalk 13:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Likely socks indeffed and tagged. Case closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Duck: Recreation of Rich Kids of Instagram using different title The Rich Kids Of Instagram (U.K. Series). Requesting CU for any sleepers. GSS (talk |c|em ) 10:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC) GSS  (talk |c|em ) 10:59, 7 March 2017 (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

 * - For sleepers. Thanks, GABgab 15:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The archive is stale, so this was a shot in the dark. Unsurprisingly, nothing found. Courcelles (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, does this account appear connected to the master/previous socks? Thanks, GABgab 22:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This one edit is not really enough to bloc, may be just a coincidence. Case closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Both Equinative and ProductOfMyEnvironment are SPAs on Fisher Wallace Laboratories. The former declared that he is employed by the firm.

Equinative was created a few minutes before he nominated the article for deletion, finding it too critical. Clearly this is not a new account to Wikipedia. The sock (ProductOfMyEnvironment) was created ~24 hours after the debate was closed and a few minutes after Equinative placed an speedy tag  that was declined. Starting with the very next edit on the article, the sock soon went about adding content which has judged promotional enough by other editors to be quickly removed from the article.

Behavioral evidence is clear that these two accounts exist to keep this article in line with the company's preferred talk about itself. The timing of the creation and actions here require investigation. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC) ☆ Bri (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' To start out, I want to say that it is very useful to those of us who work on serially-socking paid editors to gather up all socks that we can, even if they are no longer active. There is more at stake here than whether the person is currently active or not and I would be happy to explain why via email. has already been tagged as a Jeremy sock; we are now looking to determine whether ProductOfMyEnvironment should be as well.

Per the edit stats on the Fisher Wallace article, I have had my eye on it for a long time -- it sells a medical device that has a complicated regulatory history ... but briefly, the company has benefitted financially from being "grandfathered in" to be able to market its devices, and has fought like hell to keep the FDA from regulating it, which would force the company to spend a ton of money on clinical trials, which could well show that the device doesn't work. The company has also aggressively managed its image in public and of course its WP article as well.

Same thing at the article about the device they sell, Cranial electrotherapy stimulation. Here are the edit stats for that.

The first conflicted editor to work on these topics was who disclosed here that they worked for a company selling CES devices. Given that the only company they edited was Fisher Wallace which is in New York City, and given their username - the area code in NYC is 212 and Columbia University's sports teams are the Lions -- that company is probably Fisher Wallace. This user struggled to shape the articles like they wanted and failed. Those matters came to a head in mid-to late July 2015. It would not be at all surprising if they had turned to paid editors.

The article about Fisher Wallace was created in March 2015, and it contained the following: "The company’s primary product, the Fisher Wallace Stimulator, until 2007 known as the Liss Cranial Stimulator, has been cleared by the FDA since 1991 to treat depression, insomnia, anxiety and chronic pain."

I worked that article over in early June 2016 and when I was done it looked like this. That sentence was well gone.

Equinative's first edit was to disclose that they were being paid by Fisher Wallace, and the next edit was to nominate the article for deletion - this was at the end of June 2016. This is Fisher Wallace saying "if we can't control the page, we want it gone". Their AfD nomination talked about "negative slant" and as you can see in this diff, as soon as the AfD was closed as "keep", they tried to have it speedy deleted as an attack page. That is all that this account did in Wikipedia. Obvious throw-away sock. Their last edit was July 6 2016

Turning now to ProductofMyEnvironment. First of all, this account made its first edit the very next day, on July 7 2016. If you compare contribs page of both editors, and look at their edit notes, you will notice that they both write sentence notes - Capital letter, ending with period. Sentences. So same there.

ProductofMyEnvironment made some desultory sports edits (a common topic for the real sockmaster here), then came to the Fisher Wallace article and did this which added the following to the article "The company’s primary product, the Fisher Wallace Stimulator, until 2007 known as the Liss Cranial Stimulator, has been cleared by the Food and Drug Administration since 1991 to treat depression, insomnia, anxiety and chronic pain."

Same sentence that used to be in the article. (and this is exactly the complicated regulatory history that Fisher Wallace is intensely interested in managing/spinning to its advantage.  The edit was challenged by a third editor, and ProductofMyEnvironment explained what they did  here and wrote I looked at the original version of the article, and used the same language that was included there. I didn't understand why it was taken down. I didn't look at the sources correctly, which I'm guessing is why. It appears to be factually correct, although I acknowledge that the way it was cited was incorrect. I looked through the page you sent, about having a conflict of interest, and will say that I don't have one..

This is pretty obviously not true, and they were pretty obviously instructed to get that language back into the article, and told where to find it. They later made blatantly promotional edits like this, where they removed negative content and added promotional content - the ref they added with a bare URL was a churnalism source. This editor, like Equinative, was clearly here purely to promote this company's interests. That they are another sock seems very, very likely to me. Jytdog (talk) 04:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * There's certainly cause for concern here, but no account in question has edited in over a year and I don't think there's enough here to definitively connect ProductOfMyEnvironment. I'm leaning towards closing without action – I don't feel like I can do anything else unless there's more evidence. I'll leave this open for a second opinion, though – I don't have much experience in paid-editing cases. Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 19:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * asked me to take a look. I agree that ProductOfMyEnvironment is pretty DUCKish to Equinative  but also concur with Kevin that since it is so long since they edited, there is no point taking action. In the unlikely event ProductOfMyEnvironment reappears, then we would need to revisit. SmartSE (talk) 12:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The account is inactive. Case closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  17:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

I understand this verges on a shot in the dark... Emenar's sole edits are to and about Cognifit, an article that was created by the Jeremy112233 sockfarm, more specifically adding the page to a list article, requesting undeletion at WP:REFUND*, and contesting the G11 deletion on Cognifit's talk page. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 17:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC) — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 17:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Current location: Requests for undeletion/Archive 287*. 50.0.205.86 (talk) 12:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

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


 * I'd add . – Athaenara ✉  22:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * This guy may have registered solely to send emails, I don't know. I've received two from him, which (as per Emailing users) I will not quote in their entirety but only in part.


 * In the first, he identified himself as Tommy Sagroun, the CEO of Cognifit, and said, "Obviously we would like to get our CogniFit Wikipedia's page restored shortly. If any editorial issue, please let us know what content should be updated to better comply with Wikipedia's policy." (That was about 1/20 of the text.)


 * In the second, he said, "Indeed Emenar and I both work at CogniFit in 2 different offices (he is located in Spain and I am in the US). I do not know who Jeremy112233 is though. The CogniFit page was created a long time ago and probably before my time at the company." (That was about 1/10 of the text.)


 * I'm not personally inclined to help companies increase their profiles on this encyclopedia. I guess he doesn't know what we mean by sockpuppet, and I don't know what appropriate responses might be.  Feel free to rollback my edits to this page if they're not useful or helpful. – Athaenara  ✉  22:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - All previous socks are . ~ Rob 13 Talk 01:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The two accounts are ❌, following pretty much what Tommycognifit said to . I have blocked Emenar for meat puppetry intentionally without tags. I see no reason to block Tommycognifit unless he later becomes disruptive. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The suspect themselves look like a undisclosed paid editor. But after checking creation and recreation recording, the suspected has re-created Ermenegildo Zegna (executive) (which was then moved to Ermenegildo Zegna (1955)) in 2019. The previous version by the sockmaster was deleted in 2017 due to G5 and G11. Based on deletion review log, that article was created by sockmaster thus it was eligible to G5. Behaviourally, the new suspect has insist to re-create the article, even the article was boldly merged in 2019. Instead he yet restart another userspace draft, which was moved to Draft:Ermenegildo Zegna and currently Ermenegildo Zegna (fashion entrepreneur) after the draft was accepted. Matthew hk (talk) 11:39, 15 January 2020 (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

 * This case is . Based on CU logs, Erisimo is ❌. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not much intersection in 2015/2016, can be separate incidents and the technical data is not convincing. You might want to purse a UPE block. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Sock and suspected sock Yorrellew both created promotional page for Chris Appleton. The new page was pre-created with a "Peacock|date=February 2021" tag, so appears copied from an old version (a draft?). Suspected master is blocked for spamming. Suspected puppet is likely on same path. Requesting CU to see if other accounts are visible.  Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 11:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

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


 * Note that Chris Appleton is now at Draft:Chris Appleton. SmartSE (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Appears ❌ when comparing the logs of the master and this user. Different geolocations.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   16:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Special:Undelete/Roy_Weller is also quite revealing and makes it unlikely that Yorrellew is a sock. SmartSE (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Closing per the above. The SandDoctor  Talk 18:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)