Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LumCel/Archive

13 August 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Well, WP:DUCK issues aside, all three accounts appear to be involved in the creation of marginally promotional articles; the type of thing one might expect from a writer-for-hire. User talk pages show histories of creations and deletions of many articles. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I rescued The Artsy Fartsy Show which appeared to be borderline notable and discovered what this user's modus operandi is - he does a web search for a subject, and shotguns sources into the text at seemingly random intervals. The armchair psychologist in me says this sounds like a paid editor who either doesn't speak good English or is just lazy and looking for a quick buck. So if anyone else turns up and does the same thing, we might have some WP:QUACKing going on. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   11:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - - Sleeper check. Names indicate same person, and their deleted contribs (    all show probably promotion going on. This kind of promotional writing tends to carry with it many socks, hence a check would be good. NativeForeigner Talk 20:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Per above endorsement. I've tagged all accounts. NativeForeigner Talk 20:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing to report that isn't already clear. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Everyone is already blocked and tagged, so we are done here. Courcelles 17:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

13 September 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Sort of a WP:DUCK thing based on being confirmed as a prior sock of this master. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:40, 13 September 2013 (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

 * Sock-blocked AzzuriItalia2 on behavioural evidence. Tagged talk pages with sock notices.  Closing.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 22:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

10 October 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Duckish similarity to prior sock names. Similar pattern of promotional page creation. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:29, 10 October 2013 (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

 * AzzuriItalia3 blocked indef as a duck, and his articles deleted under G5. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think a further check is needed here. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

17 January 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Four users have created a page with an unlikely title: InventHelp’s INPEX Invention Trade Show. The title is unlikely for two reasons:
 * The title contains a nice curly Unicode apostrophe (U+2019) instead of an ordinary typewriter apostrophe (U+0027).
 * The title includes both the organizer's name and the show's name.

Let me tell you about these four creators:
 * The first creator was DrinkingLumia, who has already been blocked as a sockpuppet of LumCel.
 * The second creator was Mr RD; the second creation was a trimmed-down version of the first creation.
 * The third creator was Wefteemon, who writes that he runs an online marketing firm.
 * The fourth creator was Alexandra Goncharik, who created a redirect named "InventHelp’s INPEX Invention Trade Show" and a target article named "INPEX (invention show)". Within half an hour, Mr RD marked the target article as reviewed.

A fifth user created a similarly-named page: InventHelp's INPEX Invention Trade Show. This page has the same name as the first page, except that it includes an ordinary (non-curly) typewriter apostrophe. Mr RD removed the speedy deletion tag, but the page got deleted anyway. This fifth user is BritishSoldiersAreMurderers, who has already been blocked for having a rude username.

I suspect it's possible that all five accounts are really one person who wants to promote INPEX. (Paid editing?) Unfortunately, since I'm not an admin and can't view deleted revisions, I can't provide diffs to bolster my case.

I wonder if you could also please do a CheckUser on all the involved accounts for other sleeper socks, since LumCel has already used half a dozen socks in the past.

I thank the admin Geni for his/her invaluable help on IRC, which helped me to write this report. Much of the information in this report was discovered by him/her, not by me.

Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 01:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Bilby, I saw your comment in the section below. Thank you for your work on this case. If I may ask: Is LumCel or Mr RD or any other account a sockpuppet of Alexandra Goncharik? Because if so, then may I suggest that Alexandra Goncharik should be temporarily blocked for sockmastering, and that her sockpuppets should be indef blocked. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless the SPI turned up something, which I assume NativeForeigner would have raised if it was the case, then I don't have anything to connect LumCel, Mr RD and Alexandra Goncharik. I believe that all three are paid editors, and I'm chasing up something in relation to Mr RD, but I don't have any reason to believe that they are the same user. My understanding is that they may have shared a client, but were hired independently of each other - it isn't unusual to see a client hire an different editor after a paid-for article is deleted. - Bilby (talk) 01:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I hadn't considered that. I've re-analyzed the evidence with which I opened my original report, and re-analyzed some other evidence I've found. I've also dug up some strong counterevidence. (I've summarized it all in a memo stored on my cellphone. If anyone wants to see the undisclosed evidence and counterevidence, simply let me know.) In the end, I believe you are probably right: they are probably separate paid editors. Collusion to keep on recreating a non-notable article is an unfortunate tactic. Sadly, Sock puppetry doesn't seem to consider it a blockable offense. —Unforgettableid (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - likely paid editing stuff. Rschen7754 02:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A check was rather . is indubitably doing paid editing, as was the IP range. Everything else is much harder to pin down.   is ✅ to murderers.  is apparently unrelated. NativeForeigner Talk 18:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not much to do here - MrRD is currently temporarily blocked due to an unrelated SPI. DrinkingLumia was previously indef blocked as a sock of LumCel. BritishSoldiersAreMurderers was indef blocked for username violations, but I've tagged and put a note on their talk page. And I'll raise the paid editing issue with Wefteemon. - Bilby (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * As Bilby said, not much more to do here. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)