Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnathenphillips/Archive

27 April 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

This is kind of a weird one. Editor is here under their real name. Made this edit, which I reverted as obvious spam and gave them a userpage warning here, and he replied on my talk page with this surprising statement: "You denied my edit that i attempted to add to a discovered dead link.  The page that I pointed it to was extremely relevant. You also called it spam without explaining in any further. I already understand that the links are no follow..   Provide me with an explanation. After you do so, I will remove my account. I am a business  owner  / manager and work with hundreds of companies across the nation and have never came across a group of individuals that show so much disrespect and lack of quality moderation.  It's funny that I have another account under a different company and very rarely get my edits rejected. With this account it appears that there is some bias."

I replied to him, but because of what he said, I don't count on a response from him to work this out simply.

Earlier, he had tried to create an article on on YELTEK which was speedy deleted. (I reckon that this is what he was talking about in his remark to me, about getting a negative response under this account). Yeltek is an SEO company per its website, and that is Johnathen Phillips's company per this. In his note to me, as you can see he expressed no understanding of the WP:SOCK or WP:PROMO or WP:PAID policies nor the WP:SPAM guideline.

He has admitting SOCKing. That seems to be enough to run a CU to find and then block the alternative account(s). The other account(s) is/are likely to be doing paid SEO editing without disclosing it or running them through AfC for review, and it would be useful to know what the affected articles are so we can check them for NPOV/PROMO/sourcing etc. fwiw, his spamming edit that I reverted modified this dif made earlier today, which is from an IP and may or not be him. Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 27 April 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
I'm not checking an account on the off chance that I'll find another unidentified account. This account has very little activity, and some of that is old. Admittedly, the little it has is disruptive, but if he is in fact a paid editor, he's not very good at it based on the content of YELTEK. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)