Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qweasdzxc11/Archive

29 August 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Qweasdzxc11 has contributed to several spammy/promotional articles such as Alan Wilzig and Erik Wachtmeister. Up until today, ThomKibitz was an SPA solely editing Erik Wachtmeister. However, today ThomKibitz posted a question on my talk page about Alan Wilzig,, despite never having worked on Alan Wilzig. It appears that the sock mixed up accounts. Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Separately, Earflaps seems to be contributing a lot to spammy/promotional articles. And there seems to be coordination with the Qweasdzxc11 account, see this edit. The use of multiple sandboxes by Earflaps (see contribs) is a bit like what is going on with Morning277, but I don't know if there is a connection. Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Earflaps here. I am a large contributor (trapped and with too much free time for the summer), but I do everything I can to follow rules and not be mistaken for someone being disruptive or biased. Just sayin'. Logical Cowboy (perhaps in good faith, I dunno) has been mad tagging all the pages I've contributed to the past day, so I feel a little personally attacked. Earflaps (talk) 06:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Earflaps, you did not respond to the substance of the above point. One account, Qweasdzxc11, wrote a spammy article and placed it in another account's, Earflaps, sandbox.    The spammy article, Ana Berry, was posted then deleted.  Working with two accounts to post a spammy, likely paid, article, looks a lot like sockpuppeting.  That is why I raised your name here.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 11:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't address that issue because I wasn't sure my statement mattered. But here's the truth anyways: I did research and posted a draft, and afterwards decided it didn't have the references to pass the notability threshold. I made it a link so it wouldn't float around forever in google, but also so I could find it if more references showed up. What someone else tried to do with my draft without my consent I can't comment on. Earflaps (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2013 (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

 * Qweasdzxc11 and ThomKibitz are technically ❌. I don't see enough evidence to check Earflaps. Closing, then with no action taken. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)