Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jslpublicist/Archive

04 February 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Narrative: Internal quest was deleted because it was created by Jslpublicist, whose username is significantly similar to the website for Internal Quest: http://JerseySoundLab.com/. User:Jslpublicist was subsequently blocked for SPAM. At a time significantly soon afterward, User:Botmra was created and re-created the Internal Quest article with the same or almost the same content. There was an additional IP user who edited the Internal Quest article and who may be a sock puppet of Jslpublicist, but I don't have access to the page history of the deleted Internal Quest page. I don't know if a CheckUser is needed for this investigation but it might fall under "You believe a check is warranted anyway". Thanks. Evidence: A version of Internal quest was created at about 06:30, 3 February 2013 by User:Jslpublicist. 06:44, 3 February 2013 Tucoxn (talk | contribs) marked Internal quest for deletion with subst:blp-prod tag 14:01, 4 February 2013 JamesBWatson (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:Internal quest (G8: Talk page of a deleted page) 14:01, 4 February 2013 JamesBWatson (talk | contribs) deleted page Internal quest (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) 14:04, 4 February 2013 JamesBWatson (talk | contribs) blocked Jslpublicist (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite 14:25, 4 February 2013‎ Botmra (talk | contribs)‎. . (5,733 bytes) (+5,733)‎. . (Removed promotional sources) The content of the deleted page for Internal quest is almost the same as or very similar to the content of the re-created page. -   &#x0288;  u coxn \ talk 23:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, it's possible that the username Botmra does not agree with the policies against Misleading usernames at WP:IU -   &#x0288;  u coxn \ talk 01:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Obviously a sock, but he may not have realized that creating a new account after a username block would be seen as malicious.  On the other hand, there could be more to this than just these two accounts.   was actually the original one who created the page, and  has also made one edit recently (both users' edits are deleted now though.)  Perhaps it's not sockpuppetry, but rather meatpuppetry by different people in his PR team.  — Soap — 01:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Closing, since creating another account with an acceptable username after a username block is not a violation of the sockpuppetry policy. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)