Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Peeball/Archive

Report date July 7 2009, 01:42 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Calton

User:Peeball seemed to be the account of a UK brand consultancy (Sweetapple) and used to further the publicity aims of its owners, Elaine and Matthew Sweetapple. The name is itself is the name of a product that they're flogging and the now-deleted user page (as well as User:Herculous and User:Creationist32) were identical and highly detailed adverts. See the initial report on the first two accounts (User:Peeball & User:Herculous) here. The first account was blocked at WP:UAA as inappropriately commercial, the second untouched.

I would have left it alone, except that the user's response to the deletions was to re-create the page at a brand-new account (at User:Creationist32) and to attempt to obscure notice by removing his own complaint from my user talk page using an IP. Again, note that the account User:Herculous has NOT been blocked, so I don't see any good reason for starting yet-another account.

I believe further action is called for, though what, exactly, that action is I leave up to others. Someone explaining Wikipedia's no-advertising policy to the Sweetapples might be a start. --Calton | Talk 01:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Rebuttal 1: You know, for such a "novice", you seemed to have done well enough to create an extraordinarily detailed and well-formatted page flogging your company and its clients: any admin is invited to view the deleted pages for the themselves or one can find the Google cache. For such an innocent and above-aboard editor, you seem to have taken some rather direct steps to avoid scrutiny of your actions, including creating a duplicate spam page and, when uncovered, re-creating under another name instead actually attempting to defend yourself, not to mention your altering my comments above. For such a person who claims not understand basic Wikipedia behavior, you seem to have little interest or patience in reading the numerous links and text provided for you in more than one location, including the text of the blocking notice on User talk:Peeball (Uw-ublock), the criteria for speedy deletion (particularly item 11), the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, most especially, our FAQ for businesses. The bottom line is, as they say in your world, I am having less and less belief in your being sincere, and more and more belief in your being disingenuous.


 * Further Comment: And the reason for creating a brand-new account re-creating the deleted page when you weren't blocked was what, exactly? --Calton | Talk 13:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties

As I've made clear to Calton in relation to his inexplicably hostile comments. I am not Peeball or Herculous and they were never the user names of anyone employed by Sweetapple. Close to us yes. But not us

I was aware that the pages had been created and, while they were unflagged, I was happy with them and that they accurately portrayed the organisation's work and, notably, its charitable iniatives. Naturally. However. When the flagging of the Sweetapple pages was brought to my attention I created the Creationist page. I did this as I was told that the page copy could be pulled at anytime and that by copying and pasting the copy I could work on it away from the main page to make it acceptable. I now understand that this appeared, clearly to Calton, incredibly suspicious. I'm still really not sure why... It was just me following the advice I had and not  knowing there was any other account I could use. WIth Calton's 'assistance' I am now attempting to bring the copy in line with Wikipedia ground rules and I have made clear my interest in the two key subjects involved. I will also ask an independent editor to review the changes.

Please let me know if there's more I should be doing? Thank you.

(Creationist32 (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)).


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * I have indef blocked both and  as socks of
 * Per WP:AGF and WP:BITE, I am leaving unblocked and explaining to them that they may only edit via that account, and that any socking will result in a indef block
 * I only blocked one IP, that being 90.220.154.247 for a period of 55 hours as it is the only active one.
 * I only blocked one IP, that being 90.220.154.247 for a period of 55 hours as it is the only active one.

Tiptoety talk 20:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)