Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pearljambandaid/Archive

09 November 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

I think we have a sock-farm, two of them actually, It's one situation so I'm putting them all on one page so a checkuser can sort out the connections either behaviorally or technically. First, I believe Pearljambandaid and Sowhatchawant are one user. I am basing this off username similarity (both are related to 90's bands) and boths sole and only contributions have been to promote SMH Records. SMH Records was created then later deleted and recreated, I can't look at the actually first version prior to deletion and the most recent recreation to get an idea of the similarities. Some of those other things is the attempts to procure notability by association of the offer of record contracts, ie Jayz and Lindsay Lohan. The sources were also largely the same. The verbage that at the very least So Whatchawant is a pr oar a sock is his usage of the word "professional" which I think is a slip up I believe on his part because as a paid professional he would be in that mindset and not actually building the encyclopedia. Now the other tell I think is that they have a detailed knowledge of the inner workings and employees of the record label []. This leads us to the article that cements the deal Michael Bentley (producer). SWYW nominates it for deletion saying there is no credible sources and later urging me "to go after"
 * I added the changes last night but forgot to sign-in. You removed the info and put on the page that info was not needed but it is and verified with credible links such as MTV News and Billboard about the company. I don't quite understand how you say it shouldn't be added when it's reliable and part of the company. You also removed stuff previously a few weeks back some I agreed with and some I didn't. You also had the wrong information such as the "video that dissed kim kardashian". It needs to read clear on what that is. Now with research on SMH Records - I found someone who claims to be part of the company but isn't. If you want to "go after" a page here is one for you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bentley_(producer) Sowhatchawant (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC) ( pasted by Hiab )

So now with the other three editors they all are using the same language to denounce SWYW with the same verbage as seen on the talkpage here []. I think there is either Good hand bad hand editing or two seperate promoting companies in a dispute with each other. I'm also notifying the original administrators of this partly because I'm pretty irritated with how this was actually handled at the onset and if it had been looked at for the issue and not the red herring that was being presented it might have partially avoided this mess. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me add WP:OUTING to the WP:QUACKING [].. 00:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Another interesting piece [] and this from the other [] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 05:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

I do not have the same IP addresses of any of the other alleged sock puppets besides Delorean288. I was on wikipedia years ago under what I thought was that name, and when I tried to log in it said I needed to create an account. The same terminology used is because it was blatantly obvious that a malicious intent was up by user Sowhatchawant on [].

Now as pointed out Pearljambandaid and Sowhatchawant are the same person. It is actually publicist  as he  created []

http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/Jonathan_Hay_(publicist)

Now if any of these users are the same Sowhatchawant, Zinch2o, MrSpankie, I don't know. It seems they might be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherwoodstu (talk • contribs) 04:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * On 19 October I asked Sowhatchawant whether he or she was Pearljambandaid, and if not, what connection he or she had to Pearljambandaid. He/she gave a mederately long answer, saying at some length that he/she had not used any other account, but not directly answering the question about having a connection to Pearljambandaid. It is totally clear that there is a connection. The editor was given an opportunity to say what the connection was, but chose not to. The answer reads, in fact, exactly like the sort of thing you get from someone who does not wish to admit a connection, but prefers to stop short of telling a direct lie. When I asked the question, I was open to the possibility that it was a perfectly good-faith case of two colleagues working together, without any reason to think that there was anything wrong with doing so. However, when an editor receives a civil and neutrally phrased request for information, and chooses to evade the question, it is more difficult to assume good faith. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * LOL. There isn't any connection with me and Sowhatchawant, or anybody else here listed for that matter. I quit messing with Wikipedia because of all the weirdness like this. I always fish around wikipedia even though it left a bad taste in my mouth. Since I seem to be at the head of this controversy and haven't logged in for 7 months, I thought it was necessary to speak out about this. I don't know really why, or why it even matters, but here you go. As to why Sowhatchawant gave you JamesBWatson a vague answer that you felt proved we were the same people is laughable. Is it because we both created a SMH Records page? It's not like they are an unknown company for pete's sake. Looking over all of you alls comments HellintheBucket said that he thinks that I and Sowhatchawant are the same person because we are named after both 90's bands. HellintheBucket was so rude to me and if you dig deep in this talk page you can find his probalems with other people and his disciplinary actions. I swore I'd never logon to Wikipedia again because of him. For his laughable claims about a sockpuppet and 90's bands names? Pearl Jam is a 90's band that's common knowledge. There isn't a band called Sowhatchawant from the 90's and if there is, I never heard of them, or can I find anything about them. So I dig deeper..... If you are saying Sowhatchawant is influenced the name of the song by the beastie boys that would be wrong lol. The beastie boys are an 80's band,not 90's. One is a rap band the other is a altenrtaive rock group so you are reaching for that conclusion. REACHING. Another laughable thing to say. I follow all the hip hop and rap blogs and websites and SMH Records is a known company as you can see from them always being in the news and from their press links. I don't think you can justify anything by saying they aren't notable. And if you find they aren't now, everyweek they have something else happening which makes them more notable. I don't know if you follow the rap culture, but they are blowing up. So when another user creates a SMH page will there be another sockpuppet investigation? Will I be brought into it again? It's pretty freaking strange some of your ways here. I created the page as a school project, nothing more, nothing less. For the Michael Bentley stuff you are saying. He was listed on my orginial wikipedia page that I created for SMH Records. He was part of the company from my research at the time. I dig deeper..... This user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Zinch2o edits Michael Bentley and Catfish HUghes who are infact the same person according to the internet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catfish_Hughes and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bentley_(producer). So that would be my sock puppet guess with all the editing those same people do that you listed above. Those people you named above are all connected according to there edits and they edit and post the same thing and create pages related to eachother. Even Michael Bentley and Catfish Hughes press links are the same. This is all so laughable to me. You all need better things to do with your time. Now, for the love of everything can someone from wikipedia put this to rest once and for all???? Pearljambandaid (talk) 11:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is the connection about Michael Bentley and Catfish Hughes as all these are connected. It's weird how all these pages are created so easily.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sherwoodstu

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Zinch2o

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Delorean288

The person who created Catfish Hughes Wiki page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/WompRatz

None of those people have anything to do with me, but Michael Bentley did have something to do with SMH Records. Pearljambandaid (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You may like to re-read what I wrote, carefully. I did not say that "Sowhatchawant gave [me] a vague answer that [I] felt proved [you] were the same people". I didn't even say that you were the same people. What I said was that granted that it was already clear that there is a connection between the two accounts, Sowhatchawant's failure to state what the connection is makes it difficult to assume good faith. The conviction that there is a connection is based on a careful comparison of the editing history of the two accounts, including deleted edits. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out the near identical accusations made by both Pearljambandaid and Sowhatchawant as well as me being the root of all of their troubles. I find that mildly amusing and a load of horse shit as well. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Is it horse shit or are you at the root of the problems? It sure does seem like the common denominator of smh records is HellinTheBucket. He needs a sockpuppet investigation. Very suspicious.Pearljambandaid (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * and are ✅ to each other and are.
 * , and  are ✅ to each other and are.
 * and are ✅ to each other and are.
 * and, not named as suspects in this SPI but checked based on deleted article overlaps, are ✅ to each other and are technically to be related to any other usersnames here.
 * The results regarding were  with regard to a link to ..
 * The results regarding were  with regard to a link to ..


 * That's all folks.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've blocked all the confirmed and likely accounts as socks of Pearljambandaid, as I felt that the behavioral evidence was sufficient to link them all together. It appears that Lonely289 isn't registered and I don't see any abuse filter logs, so perhaps it was a renamed account? Regardless, I don't see any abuse with Lonely289 and Womage27 nor any strong ties to Pearljambandaid and Co., so I'm not taking any action with those accounts. Mike V  •  Talk  19:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I mistyped the Lonely account name; it's , which I've corrected it above. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries. :) The edits of the two accounts are about 1 month apart. I'm going to assume good faith, as this looks like it could be an instance where the individual lost the password to the account and made a new one. Mike V  •  Talk  20:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

23 November 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Another sock to add to the farm,. miraculous arrival for the AFD discussion which can be held without or at least the influence of the six or so other socks found in last checkuser. Can we please checkuser tor other accounts for afd manipulation. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Interesting similarities. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * -Comment from new sock []
 * -Comment from master [] (i find this funny as I am half mexican last I knew the KKK doesn't accept non white members)
 * -Comment from last sock [].
 * It was an obvious sock and I reverted completely under WP:EVADE as there was little question based on the edit and it's content, I mainly asked for the checkuser to make sure a new farm hasn't been planted. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2014 (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

 * There's only a single edit, it can just as likely be meat or canvassing as outright socking. I would just tag their !vote with and the closing admin can judge the edit accordingly.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  16:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Per 's comment, I'm closing this with no further action., it's up to you if you want to take Ponyo's advice, as opposed to your revert + comment. I won't enforce it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

03 December 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

For the same reason as before, new account knows intinately about the inner workings of the industry which was a tell from the last SPI. Revdel evidence from the case page should help, the other thing you should look at [] the eighties comment reference []. Coincidence? Maybe but then his second edit after that is to comment delete on the SMH record which would follow whatever fued between those sock/meat puppets have going on. SO block evasion and afd manipulation Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' See also Sockpuppet investigations/Causeandedit/Archive duffbeerforme (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅ to each other:
 * The closing admin might wish to take a look at my userspace where I held an article from deletion for an SPI. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  04:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The closing admin might wish to take a look at my userspace where I held an article from deletion for an SPI. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  04:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The closing admin might wish to take a look at my userspace where I held an article from deletion for an SPI. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  04:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The closing admin might wish to take a look at my userspace where I held an article from deletion for an SPI. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  04:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * All accounts have been blocked and tagged. I'll sort through the promotional links. Mike V  •  Talk  21:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)