Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marcelo842/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

In dealing with Bobby Joshi & Bobby Joshi (photographer), while the articles were still visible I searched for the company name Goodshotz and came across who has a sandbox plugging BJ dating back to Dec 2017. My reading of the events is that BJ, under the GoodShotz username, saw how it might be difficult to successfully introduce his autobiography, and sought a paid editor. created Bobby Joshi, then created Bobby Joshi (photographer). Given that Marcelo842 also overlaps with spammy contributions on Draft:Moogsoft with (Moogsoft is salted) I strongly suspect a paid sockfarm. Cabayi (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

A couple of post CU points... Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Since  has unexpectedly shown up in the CU here, the month-old case at Sockpuppet investigations/Kashmirwindow can be tidied away as well?
 * , the deleted articles show that Goodshotz is Bobby Joshi's business name. I didn't think was part of the sockfarm but I'm convinced he's the bankroll behind the spam biographies and that in this regard the sockfarm is his WP:MEAT.

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Note to clerks is the oldest listed account, created on 10th November 2017. Even GoodShotz is newer (December 2017).  &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  00:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
TonyBallioni (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The following users are ✅ to one another:
 * I'm not particularly sure what is going on here. looked at some of these on a different case about a month ago. Given the crossover here on the deleted articles and the sheer volume of accounts though, I'm blocking now. The accounts are . could a clerk move this to the oldest account in my list of confirmed socks and then tag them? I'm not particularly convinced that GoodShotz is the master here behaviorally, and personally wouldn't block. Whether or not you want to block  on behavior is up to you. Thanks for your help here. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , yes, that was the case that some of these socks were previously checked on. I'll note that I haven't looked at it in depth, but that the named master there did not come up in any of my checks, and that based on the CU log for that case, it looks unrelated.Re: GoodShotz, I'm fine with believing that they were likely hired by the same client, I just don't personally think they look to meet the behaviour of this sock farm, which to me looks like one person. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly sure what is going on here. looked at some of these on a different case about a month ago. Given the crossover here on the deleted articles and the sheer volume of accounts though, I'm blocking now. The accounts are . could a clerk move this to the oldest account in my list of confirmed socks and then tag them? I'm not particularly convinced that GoodShotz is the master here behaviorally, and personally wouldn't block. Whether or not you want to block  on behavior is up to you. Thanks for your help here. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , yes, that was the case that some of these socks were previously checked on. I'll note that I haven't looked at it in depth, but that the named master there did not come up in any of my checks, and that based on the CU log for that case, it looks unrelated.Re: GoodShotz, I'm fine with believing that they were likely hired by the same client, I just don't personally think they look to meet the behaviour of this sock farm, which to me looks like one person. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly sure what is going on here. looked at some of these on a different case about a month ago. Given the crossover here on the deleted articles and the sheer volume of accounts though, I'm blocking now. The accounts are . could a clerk move this to the oldest account in my list of confirmed socks and then tag them? I'm not particularly convinced that GoodShotz is the master here behaviorally, and personally wouldn't block. Whether or not you want to block  on behavior is up to you. Thanks for your help here. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , yes, that was the case that some of these socks were previously checked on. I'll note that I haven't looked at it in depth, but that the named master there did not come up in any of my checks, and that based on the CU log for that case, it looks unrelated.Re: GoodShotz, I'm fine with believing that they were likely hired by the same client, I just don't personally think they look to meet the behaviour of this sock farm, which to me looks like one person. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly sure what is going on here. looked at some of these on a different case about a month ago. Given the crossover here on the deleted articles and the sheer volume of accounts though, I'm blocking now. The accounts are . could a clerk move this to the oldest account in my list of confirmed socks and then tag them? I'm not particularly convinced that GoodShotz is the master here behaviorally, and personally wouldn't block. Whether or not you want to block  on behavior is up to you. Thanks for your help here. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , yes, that was the case that some of these socks were previously checked on. I'll note that I haven't looked at it in depth, but that the named master there did not come up in any of my checks, and that based on the CU log for that case, it looks unrelated.Re: GoodShotz, I'm fine with believing that they were likely hired by the same client, I just don't personally think they look to meet the behaviour of this sock farm, which to me looks like one person. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly sure what is going on here. looked at some of these on a different case about a month ago. Given the crossover here on the deleted articles and the sheer volume of accounts though, I'm blocking now. The accounts are . could a clerk move this to the oldest account in my list of confirmed socks and then tag them? I'm not particularly convinced that GoodShotz is the master here behaviorally, and personally wouldn't block. Whether or not you want to block  on behavior is up to you. Thanks for your help here. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , yes, that was the case that some of these socks were previously checked on. I'll note that I haven't looked at it in depth, but that the named master there did not come up in any of my checks, and that based on the CU log for that case, it looks unrelated.Re: GoodShotz, I'm fine with believing that they were likely hired by the same client, I just don't personally think they look to meet the behaviour of this sock farm, which to me looks like one person. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly sure what is going on here. looked at some of these on a different case about a month ago. Given the crossover here on the deleted articles and the sheer volume of accounts though, I'm blocking now. The accounts are . could a clerk move this to the oldest account in my list of confirmed socks and then tag them? I'm not particularly convinced that GoodShotz is the master here behaviorally, and personally wouldn't block. Whether or not you want to block  on behavior is up to you. Thanks for your help here. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , yes, that was the case that some of these socks were previously checked on. I'll note that I haven't looked at it in depth, but that the named master there did not come up in any of my checks, and that based on the CU log for that case, it looks unrelated.Re: GoodShotz, I'm fine with believing that they were likely hired by the same client, I just don't personally think they look to meet the behaviour of this sock farm, which to me looks like one person. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , yes, that was the case that some of these socks were previously checked on. I'll note that I haven't looked at it in depth, but that the named master there did not come up in any of my checks, and that based on the CU log for that case, it looks unrelated.Re: GoodShotz, I'm fine with believing that they were likely hired by the same client, I just don't personally think they look to meet the behaviour of this sock farm, which to me looks like one person. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅ and closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  12:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)