Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PennyMarketing/Archive

03 August 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Almost identical names, all created within a short period of each other. Names also indicate promotional accounts. Thesixthstaff (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC) Another sock; similar name to others, created same day Thesixthstaff (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC) Another sock - similar name, same date Thesixthstaff (talk) 14:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * To be fair, all of the user's other names are WP:ORGNAME violations anyway, and would be disallowed on that basis. This name may well be an attempt to create a valid username based on the person's name rather than their company. I can't see if there are any deleted contributions to indicate that the person is involved only in spamming the project, so an admin will need to check on that, but since all of the other socks have been blocked (and the sockmaster should be blocked on ORGNAME grounds), I think this username should be allowed to contribute, and evaluated based on their contributions. A warning about multiple account usage on their talk page should suffice. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Please, do not open a new case for every sock, just add them to previous case if it is still open.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked PennyMarketing for username violation. APennyMarketing APennyMarketingnLA, and Penny Marketing LLC Ad Agency in Los Angeles already blocked. Agree that AmandaLPennyinLA is not a username violation, and given that only one of the other accounts had made any contributions I don't think there's a pressing need to block the last account. I've left Amanda a note per the suggestion above. Sam Walton (talk) 22:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)