Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sansonic/Archive

Report date April 12 2009, 01:11 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Fences and windows (talk)

This is my first suspected sockpuppet report; apologies if I have made any mistakes.

The three accounts have been used to edit Starbucks, to introduce false information about companies relating to Pakistan. Mainly Starbucks, and also Costa Coffee and Marks & Spencer. They use misleading edit summaries, and incorrectly label them as minor changes.

Sansonic, the suspected sockpuppeteer, first edited pages in July 2008, editing to do with Manchester, Leeds and the local area, and articles on Pakistan. The first edit to Starbucks was here: on April 10. The edit to Costa Coffee was here on April 10:.

Coffeeaffection first edited Starbucks on April 10, here, reintroducing the same info as Sansonic. They edited Marks & Spencer here:. Coffeeaffection tried to represent another user, User:Esrever, as involved in the uploading of a picture that was actually uploaded by Sansonic:. Esrever denied any knowledge:

Silvesterking first made an edit to Starbucks on April 10 here:, and made one edit to Marks & Spencer here:, re-adding what Coffeeaffection added. They claim to be English, and have 'corrected' US English spelling.

All three accounts continued with problematic editing despite warnings.

Fences and windows (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sansonic has twiced removed a note on the Starbucks talk page about the sockpuppetry investigation: Fences and windows (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Was going to report this one myself. Hadn't noted Silvesterking, but Coffeeaffection and Sansonic struck me as being so similar as to suggest they were the same user. Coffeeaffection turned up on the Starbucks page with his/her first ever edit just at the right time to save Sansonic from a 3rr edit, and has only edited that page (except for one edit on Marks & Spencer). --Michael Johnson (talk) 08:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

I also noticed the Coffeeaffection account was created at the same time that myself and Michael Johnson were reverting Sansonic's edits to Starbucks. Seemed suspicious that this account appeared out of the blue with the same agenda as Sansonic. Coffeeaffection's edit history is strikingly similar to Sansonic's, and even the comments by both accounts on the talk page (under "Competitor in Pakistan") sound like they are from the same person.

--Susan118 (talk) 00:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:DUCK, the similarity between these accounts is obvious. Similar edits and similar edit summaries, as well as the timeframe in which these accounts are editing, suggests sockpuppetry or, at the very least, meatpuppetry. Both suspected sock accounts have been blocked indefinitely, and Sansonic has been blocked for one week. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 16:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Peter Symonds ( talk ) 16:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date April 16 2009, 20:02 (UTC)
*
 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Fences and windows (talk)

Sansonic was yesterday found to be operating two sockpuppets, Coffeeaffection and Silvesterking. See WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sansonic/Archive. The socks were blocked indefinitely, and Sansonic for one week. The articles involved were Starbucks, Costa Coffee, and Marks & Spencer. They were trying to add poorly sourced material relating to these companies and Pakistan, and the unauthorised use of the Starbucks logo.

Yesterday, before his block, Sansonic wrote this on the Starbucks talk page: "How about renaming my section something like "Fake starbucks"".. Today, a new user, User:Lowbiologist, has edited the Starbucks page to add information about unauthorised Starbucks in China and Pakistan, titled "Fake Starbucks" and using one of the links Sansonic wanted to include:. Lowbiologist was created 17:10, April 16, 2009, six minutes before their first edit to the Starbucks talk page:. In their unsigned edit to the talk page, Lowbiologist justified the section they added by reference to another page, that of Coffee Republic. There, an IP user added a "fakes" section on 7 April, using poor sourcing and original research:. This is their only edit.

Clearly this is an additional sockpuppet of Sansonic, and the IP user is also a sock. I'd suggest banning Sansonic permanently, and blocking the IP range. Fences and windows (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I was mistaken about the IP address. Apologies. Fences and windows (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There is behavioural evidence, e.g. the misuse of the "Minor edit" tag, also done by Sansonic and the sockpuppets:. Range of edit times: Lowbiologist: 15:29-21:50 (UK time); Coffeeaffection: 05:28-23:39; Silvesterking: 08:41-23:03; Sansonic: 08:01-00:26. Fences and windows (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Lowbiologist today added a link to Canary Wharf that leads to Spinningfields, an article Sansonic edited on March 26th:.

Please also see Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Fences and windows (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Sansonic wanted something very longwinded that included Costa coffee and the growth of the Pakistani middle class and Costa coffee, i have left all of that out. I am using some good references I found on the talk page. "Fake Starbucks" was a title I liked so I included it after seeing the talk page I felt passionate to help Sansonic yet at the same time improve what he wanted. --Lowbiologist (talk) 11:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And you just happened to hit the ground running with this immediately after registering your account? Mayalld (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

After randomly looking at the Starbucks talk pages I considered it very harsh how everyone was ganging up and bullying Sansoninc, so I thought I would create my first account and help the poor man. I am not pushing his agenda, I have just improved what he wanted to make it better fit in.--Lowbiologist (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC) - yes I live in the UK too

I agree. The timing of the creation of the account is too coincidental, there are no other edits other than to Starbucks, and this user is pushing the same agenda, which no one other than Sansonic and his/her other sockpuppets supported. --Susan118 (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

✅ =  =  =   Risker (talk) 04:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * Given this is his second offense, Knightlago blocked the main account for a month.  MBisanz  talk 04:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Report date May 3 2009, 04:43 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Fences and windows (talk)

Sansonic has been discovered to be using sockpuppets twice before.Sockpuppet_investigations/Sansonic/Archive They edited articles to do with coffee stores and M&S in relation to Pakistan, employing tendentious editing. They were blocked for a month on 18 April. A new editor, Westernpit, registered 23:37, 1 May 2009, and immediately began editing. Their second article edit was to revert as vandalism my reversion of a Sansonic sockpuppet (Coffeeaffection) on Costa Coffee on 14 April ; another edit reverted as vandalism the reversion by McSly of Silvesterking on Marks & Spencer on 11 April.

It cannot be coincidence that a new editor would restore the edits on two unrelated pages of two separate sockpuppets of Sansonic, over a fortnight after the two edits.

Other edits have been to do with Pakistan, deletion of material to do with India, and uploading copyright pictures, more behavioural similarities to Sansonic & the sockpuppets.

Fences and windows (talk) 04:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I wish to plead guilty. I do have Sansonic origins. I thought I could stay under the radar but experienced editors got the better of me. User:Fences and windows has recently shown gestures of friendlyness by correcting my spelling mistakes/font and I thank him for that. My biggest thanks to Fences is for reinserting the Pakistan thing about Starbucks (I never thought it would happen) and that is why I didn't feel the need to edit the Starbucks article. I admit I was wrong to edit the M&S article, but I still think the Costa page should have a picture of a branch in a poor country.

I hope I have saved everyone time and effort by pleading guilty. In return I hope that the decision maker spares remorse and leaniency. I would like to thank (talk) for being friendly to me and making some of my edits better. Plese have mercy on me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Westernpit (talk • contribs) 11:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Fences and windows (talk) 04:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot (talk) 04:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Keep an eye out, Fences, and refile if you feel there are other accounts out there. Declined due to admission. Nathan  T (formerly Avruch) 14:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

Admits it. Blocked, tagged, case closed. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 14:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Overlapping and very specific editing interests at British Pakistanis and Mohammed Amin (businessman) (see also this), and focus on Manchester and Conservative Party politicians. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2021 (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

 * So they're both interested in British Pakistanis. I do not see anything that convinces me that these are the same person. Closing without action. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)