Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rogers Park Chamber of Commerce/Archive

22 December 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

SPA editor appears to be evading block. Second account began editing almost immediately after the first one ceased; both promotionally edit only one article and use extremely similar edit summary styles. Regards, James(talk/contribs) 07:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

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

I'm not a "sock puppet". I'm growing weary of all of this debate on research that I spent so many hours on. My citations all check out and everything is factual.

Check the Rogers Park Chamber of Commerce talk page for information on "Second account began editing almost immediately after the first one ceased;". I've already been grilled on this by @331dot.

As for "both promotionally edit only one article", this is certainly untrue. I'm sure you can find other edited pages through some sort of edit-history search by user.

Question = Is this how it is always going to be on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmenianHour (talk • contribs) 07:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You edited only two pages: this one and Rogers Park Chamber of Commerce. I checked your contributions.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The user who started this beat me to the punch; Despite them denying it, I believe that the writing styles of these two usernames and focus on this article(again, despite what they say) indicate they are the same user; that's aside from the edit history of ArmenianHour starting minutes after RPCofC ends(and before they were blocked, I believe). Isn't it sockpuppeting if they were using an improper username and switch to a new one while claiming they are a different person?   All I would like to see is the person admit to their prior username and COI. 331dot (talk) 11:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * As you can see at User talk:Rogers Park Chamber of Commerce, this user was blocked because of the username violation and advised to create new account. Now, he did it and it is not sockpuppetry per se. If you think he has a WP:COI or makes promotional edits, try reporting him to some other venue.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)  Vanjagenije   (talk)  09:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm reopening this case and endorsing a CU check as the user denies being the same person (see ).  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Looking at the edit summaries makes it very obvious that the accounts belong to the same individual. (e.g. ArmenianHour: Added citation "Welcome to the 5th Annual Chicago Comedy Film Festival" for "In 2015 CCFF moved to Rogers Park to join the Rogers Park Chamber of Commerce in revitalizing this historic neighborhood", Rogers Park Chamber of Commerce: Added "No financial endowment" to About and cut "trade organisations globally" from About) So much so, that I don't think a checkuser is needed here. As Vanjagenije mentioned, the account is not evading a block. It was a soft block and the user was encouraged to create another account under another name. If there are COI issues, they can be addressed directly to that account or through COIN. However, I don't think this is a sockpuppetry issue. Mike V • Talk 02:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but he insists that he is not the same person (see the diff I provided). Is he allowed to do that?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  08:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a reasonably interesting question in general, and one that might merit further discussion at WT:SOCK or elsewhere, but for the purposes of this specific case, all the accounts have been indef'ed anyways (see the lower report). Since this is closed I'll archive it. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  15:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

23 December 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

COI SPA editor attempting to evade attention. Both promotionally edit in the same topic area, editing almost the same articles. The editor appears to be marginally attempting to avoid detection by avoiding the behaviors listed at their their first SPI case: editing only one article (the sock has edited two more very similar articles before returning to the original promotional page) and using distinctive edit summaries (the sock does not use them). However, the similar style, content, and topic area of the sock's edits give them away. Regards, James(talk/contribs) 06:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The other article the person created deals with a local Chicago-area chamber of commerce, much as the Rogers Park one is. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 23 December 2015 (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

 * - New editor obsessed with the Rogers Park Chamber of Commerce, should be checked.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The following accounts are ✅:
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)