Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orangehues/Archive

22 January 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

All are SPAs intent on one thing alone: adding to the resume of Charles Eisenstein. I've semi-protected the article for a week given the persistent fluffing of a BLP, but your help is appreciated. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 02:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Orange created the article, and has a user history that predates this; the other three just popped up today. Confirm Drmies' summary, since I've been thumbwrestling with these accounts for hours. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 02:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Is affiliated, or just a sympathetic party? 99.136.252.89 (talk) 02:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see an affiliation, though it's odd for such a new account to jump in there, I admit. Drmies (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm a sympathetic party, not affiliated. I initially stumbled across the Eisenstein proposal for deletion when working on my own proposal. As a new user, and as someone that knows of Eisenstein's work, I thought I would add some contribution. I was surprised to see him nominated for deletion -- his credibility is leagues above many other pages, including the one I was concerned with -- and I also felt uncomfortable being a SPA for my own deletion proposal. This is how my "Case for Notability" started. He is very influential and well regarded in his niche. And as I was also aware of a couple of appearances in mainstream media I thought perhaps he would meet the guidelines. But having looked at the Talk discussion, it may well be too soon. I was just looking in to this recent flurry of edits and found my way to your investigation. The two users above are close supporters of Eisenstein and appear to help out with his Facebook page. Have a read of this Facebook discussion. It explains their involvement. Cheers, 64Winters (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Sacred and Marie are more likely meatpuppets than sockpuppets, in my opinion. The IP is probably one of them, but a CU can't comment on such a connection. Based on writing style, I would doubt that Orangehues has anything to do with the others. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * - Not nearly enough to go on for a CU here. Like Someguy said, it's more likely meatpuppets. Diffs would be helpful here, but I'm doubtful there's actual socking here. ( X! ·  talk )  · @136  · 02:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing needs to be done, at the moment. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)