Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pauloperry/Archive

12 April 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

I was surprised to find at last three accounts that have an interest in a page about a marginally notable business executive, Shaygan Kheradpir. Especially because two of them: Pauloperry and Intchar* are SPAs that have a similar tone, tend to back each other and tend to support edits that are common among COI editors. The original article written by Intchar* contained content like "positioned Verizon and the U.S. at the forefront of consumer Internet." ("positioned" is common PR lingo). Here he uses similar language with "strategic importance" ("strategic" is again one of those common PR words). Paul also uses common PR-type language here, when he says the article-subject was "a technology leader in three different industries". Both accounts have a calm even tone and an air that suggests experience, though whatever experience they have is not documented in that account's history.

Here Paul directly solicits Intchar* to incorporate a primary source. He also advocates against the inclusion of cost-cutting and out-sourcing in the Lead, whereas Intchar* previously removed this sourced content from the body, though this removal of sourced content was not explained in the edit-summary and buried in other changes. Both are pushing for content about his thought-leadership on the commoditization/consumerization of IT, even though the only sources available are mining press articles where he is quoted commenting about it.

It is likely that MonsterMike99, who has been brought to SPI before and had his socks blocked is also a sock, but because this account has not contributed as much to this page, I don't have sufficient evidence. For the other two however: To have two SPAs participate on the same article that also shows very strong signs of COI and paid editing, for both to support each other so completely, to use similar language that suggests a marketing background, to be away from the keyboard for a week, then both comment/edit within a few hours of each other. For there to be so much support of common COI edits like including every press article where he is quoted. This is way too much to be a coincidence.

I find it hard to imagine that this version of the page was written by a disinterested volunteer and not a covert paid editor breaching the Terms of Use. I expect whatever paid editing firm is most likely involved, they are going to be sophisticated enough to make a check-user in-effective.

Disclosure Please note, I have a COI with this section of the article. I'm mostly just keeping an eye on it for anything crazy. I am relatively new to SPI, so please let me know if I need to provide anything else. CorporateM (Talk) 19:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC) CorporateM (Talk) 19:52, 12 April 2015 (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
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 72 hours for the master and indeffing sock with tag. This diff is particularly telling. Closing.