Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Piplsayofficial/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Creation of Draft:Univox Community with very similar or exactly the same content as before. Only non-userspace edits are to this draft, which has been speedied twice before when it was created by the suspected sockmaster (log). Now that the suspected sockmaster is blocked indef with account creation disabled, this new account first posts a paid disclosure on their userpage, then preceeds to create the draft (account creation to first draft edit (which is sizeable) is 9 mins (contribs)). Furthermore, their first edit to the draft has the edit summary of A few changes made to the article with regard to the spacing and spellings. Also, the declaration by the user is defined. (diff). Can this quack any louder? Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 09:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * note that the suspected sockmaster was reported on WP:UAA (i.e. the paid warning was separate to the username issue) and that suspected sockmaster had created a very promotional draft twice before. Once 17 May 2019 and then again 4 June 2019. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 20:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Piplsayofficial was blocked for spamming while using a spammy name. User:Dreamy Jazz, not being an admin, didn't have the option to do that. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the comment below, but I don't see anything in ridiculous in two people noticing the same spammer at the same time and both taking the action that they think appropriate - I must have been in the process of blocking them when DJ was in the process of warning them. Deb (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Obviously one user with two accounts, but no action taken. They were warned to comply with our paid disclosure policy, and then blocked 7 minutes later. That's ridiculous (courtesy ping ). The promo-hardblock template (I don't know if that's its name) advises the user that they must do two things to be unblocked: choose a new username, and make a proper paid contributions disclosure. Piplsayofficial/Manshsharma092 did both of those things, though by an unconventional method. If you want to see the user blocked for spam, take it to COIN or ANI. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I struck my "ridiculous" comment; I think the timeline of the warning and block is unfortunate, but that's hardly either of your faults. Still, they did what the block notice suggests, and at least for my part I'm satisfied they're not using multiple accounts in a deliberate effort to break the rules, and so I'm not going to block them on that basis. You can do as you wish, of course. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)