Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sampfire/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Both of the suspected socks appear to be focused solely on improvements to The Lens, an article currently tagged for AFD in which the sockmaster admitted to paid contributions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk &bull;&#32;contribs) 19:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' I have a long-standing interest in patent and actually any scholarly information databases, it is my expertise, sought after highly by users. I teach the Lens database to engineering and biomedical students, as I always try to teach students freely available databases and resources if only possible (which is rarely possible as we know). Even though while at the university, they have access to wonderful resources with exceptionally expensive subscription fees (Scopus, STN, SciFinder etc…), once they leave, the students lose that access, but not to the resources such as Google Scholar with their linking to Institutional repositories, or Espacenet or the Lens, those services/databases remain being ‘theirs’. For me, what is the main point shall be whether the information about the Lens is worth of being presented in Wikipedia. One has to start somewhere….I can’t write many pages at once…. There was, I suspect, no heated discussion whether eg. Scopus or STN or SciFinder services’ entries should have had Wikipedia entries, access to which requires exceptionally expensive subscriptions and not by any means available to the general public. But why the Lens page is not welcomed to Wikipedia? Similar in the wealth of information, but free? Is it because of the Matthew effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect? Well, I believe free or not, they all deserve Wikipedia pages…even if as our time cultural artefacts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_artifact. Thus, my interest in the Lens page. I'm completely unaware who, when etc created a first version of the Lens page, but I did some editing to make it how it should be, clear and matter-of-fact with secondary references. Thank you kindly again PhilKnight.WindsorForest (talk) 04:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you PhilKnight for 'freeing' me. It is my first experience of writing a Wikipedia article, and I have to say, that is probably the last one even though, it was on my list to expand on interesting patent database providers and interesting scholarly literature services lacking Wikipedia entries…..I have to start somewhere….

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Per the above, please check to confirm sockpuppetry. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The accounts are ❌. PhilKnight (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There are enough little differences here that in light of CU result, I am inclined to think this is in fact three distinct people. Since Sampfire admitted to paid editing, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if the others were as well. I'd recommend referring the matter to WP:COIN. Courtesy pinging jd22292. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)