Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LinkUsiminas/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
Single purpose corporate accounts indulging in undisclosed paid editing on enwiki's Usiminas and ptwiki's pt:Usiminas contrary to the WMF's terms of use. Cabayi (talk) 11:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Cross-reported on ptwiki, w:pt:Wikipédia:Pedidos a verificadores/Caso/LinkUsiminas. Cabayi (talk) 11:30, 28 September 2023 (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

 * , if you wish to block Usiminas Comunicação for whatever, that's up to you, but they can't be blocked for socking after you soft-blocked the master account. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not allowed to spot sockpuppetry after softblocking on a username issue? Does imposing a softblock grant a free pass on multiple accounts indulging in UPE? Where is that rule/policy/guideline ? Cabayi (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This has always been true. The block notice tells the user that the only problem with their editing is their username and gives them a choice between requesting a rename or creating a new account ("Please take a moment to either create a new account, or request a username change of your current account here." (emphasis in original)). You cannot literally invite a user to create a new account and then block them for socking. These kinds of reports are closed all the time for this reason. Also, see WP:SOFTBLOCK.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * , And blocks are overturned all the time by fresher blocks when new evidence is uncovered. A softblock does not set a high-water line beyond which no other admin may proceed. A softblock is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. Cabayi (talk) 13:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * For clarity, the overlapping UPE existed before the softblock, and it is the overlapping UPE which is the sock behaviour, not block evasion. Cabayi (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Just noting for the record, reopened this on their own.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * , I think what Bbb23 is saying is that the purpose of an SPI case is to consider whether the use of multiple accounts is happening, and whether it's a violation of WP:BADSOCK. When an account is softblocked, creating a second account isn't a violation, it's invited, so we don't block for that. If either account is indulging in UPE editing however, or any kind of disruption, I'd support blocking them for that - you can use your own discretion for that, but if you're asking for a second opinion I'd be happy to take a look? Girth Summit  (blether)  10:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree 100% that's what is saying, "When an account is softblocked, creating a second account isn't a violation", and I agree with that as a statement of fact. What is being ignored is that the sock was created & UPE editing before the softblock. I didn't spot the UPE socking 'til after I imposed the softblock. A second opinion would be appreciated, thanks. Cabayi (talk) 10:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, I've looked at the editing. Both accounts were created and used before the block was imposed; neither has made any edits since the block was imposed (and as far as I can tell with CU, no further accounts have been created, but it does confirm that these two accounts are connected). None of the edits look particularly promotional - their only contributions have been to change the name of the CEO, to change the logo, to add something to the parent company, and to revise (downwards) the number of employees. Edits like that shouldn't be made without a declaration, but they aren't the kind of promo I would impose a hardblock for; I would also not block someone for socking alone when the usernames they choose are so similar to one another as to make the connection clear - there's no apparent intention to deceive there, they probably just didn't like the first username they created for whatever reason. My take on it is that the second account should also be soft-blocked, with some further guidance about our COI guidance and the paid editing policy. Sound reasonable? Girth Summit  (blether)  11:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable, thanks. Cabayi (talk) 06:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅, closing.  Girth Summit  (blether)  08:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)