Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Slaine1/Archive

08 December 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets

This concerns an investigation led by into the PR firm Bell Pottinger editing articles on behalf of its clients: see Bell Pottinger COI Investigations. The investigation was assisted by functionaries, and , and additional editorial assistance was provided by.


 * is, but highly to be related, and is thus filed as the master.

The following accounts were ✅ to be operated by Bell Pottinger, and indefinitely blocked:



The following were blocked as accounts:

The following was blocked as a ✅ sock belonging to Chime Communications, Bell Pottinger's parent company:




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

WilliamH (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I've indef'd all of these as spammers (and some as obvious socks of each other). Quite a few have been checked already, but I'm pretty sure that at least the first three haven't. No idea if any of them are directly connected to Bell Pottinger. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Others blocked by HJ Mitchell


 * I've updated this list, appropriate tags added. WilliamH (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Most data is, nothing to report.
 * ✅ with, and is a  relation. Both blocked.
 * Most data is, but nothing to report.
 * ✅ with
 * ✅ with, both blocked.
 * ✅ with, and is a  relation. Both blocked.
 * Most data is, but nothing to report.
 * ✅ with
 * ✅ with, both blocked.
 * Most data is, but nothing to report.
 * ✅ with
 * ✅ with, both blocked.
 * ✅ with
 * ✅ with, both blocked.
 * ✅ with, both blocked.
 * ✅ with, both blocked.


 * Other possibly connected accounts
 * What do we make of ? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * could be completely unrelated, but seemed to whitewashing an article on a Bell Pottinger client. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Both are very . WilliamH (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' There is a post at ANI regarding this: Please centralise discussion there :-) The Cavalry (Message me) 14:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * blocked by HJ Mitchell as a Bell Pottinger sock. I guess it's stale. See WT:Bell Pottinger COI Investigations for background, especially my explanation for the unusual account creation out of office hours. Hans Adler 16:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's . WilliamH (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * does also need checking. Paolo  Napolitano  21:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There's a cluster of edits by known accounts promoting Moletest; that article was started by and heavily expanded by . Shimgray | talk | 12:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Edits by known BP accounts to ICT Group (Russia) included two bursts of IP editing; one as, who we know about, and one as , which doesn't link to any other edits, but may help find other usernames. Shimgray | talk | 12:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Barbara, Lady Judge was heavily edited by known BP accounts. Other users with potentially related behaviour there include and, and  (one contrib only, but again, may be indicative of other accounts). Shimgray | talk | 14:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * should be stale. Atypical editing times. My guess is that this is COI editing on behalf of Natures Way Foods and its boss, and when they ran into trouble it took them 2 weeks (13 November to 29 November 2010) to find Bell Pottinger to 'sort' it for them. Hans Adler 02:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That account doesn't seem to have edited. Are you sure you got the right one? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  03:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * All of the above accounts are indefinitely blocked. WilliamH (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to leave this open for the time as the discussion is still ongoing. I ask other clerks to do the same. Alexandria (chew out) 17:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, obviously the appropriate thing to do. I suggest that other blocked accounts are indexed here too. WilliamH (talk) 07:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I know this is already being handled, but for those looking into this, you might want to consider what else has been listed. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  13:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * G13nngraham and Medlar appear ❌. WilliamH (talk) 14:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, those tow are unrelated to each other and unrelated to the rest of this mess so we can disregard them? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  03:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * is this supposed to be filed under Slaine1 or Slaine11 (the Slaine11 account does not exist). Alexandria (chew out) 14:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep...by all means change that. :) WilliamH (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Moved to Slaine1, leaving the redirect behind as most of the links are to Slaine11 Redir nuked, backlinks taken care of. Alexandria (chew out) 14:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 62.49.5.163 looks like Awb44 logged out. Worth checking to see if any other accounts show up, though it's a long shot due to age. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  02:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Awb44 is a ✅ match to . WilliamH (talk) 02:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. I should have hunches like that more often! ;) I've indef'd Bwa00. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  03:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 62.84.201.146 (the other IP Shimgray pointed out above) also looks like a Bell Pottinger employee logged out (idiosyncratic edit summary). Worth a check if you have a minute, Will. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  03:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 62.84.201.146 leads to an account that has already been blocked as part of this SPI. The Cavalry (Message me) 00:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict: I have blocked Medlar and G13nngraham indefinitely. There is an obvious overlap in activity, e.g. making identical changes to an image. They are technically ❌ to each other, although because of where they are editing from, CheckUser is not really much of a help in that respect, and I suspect they are related. As for that IP, there's nothing really to do, although it is responsible for an exceptionally misleading edit summary. WilliamH (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This case has sat untouched for four days. Basically everyone is blocked though not tagged, and honestly I'm not even sure how to tag them. I'm closing this for now, but relist if necessary, I guess? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said before, this case is not to be closed until the investigation is done. I'd rather have one of the admins leading it comment here that it's closed. Alexandria (chew out) 15:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry about that. I've marked this case as hold, then. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So uh, it's been a week. Any progress on this? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 08:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Another CU could take a look at, there are large ranges involved, but apart from that, there's not really much more to do here. WilliamH (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What is going on in regards to and are we blocking any of the currently unblocked accounts...or how is this being summed up? --  DQ  (t)   (e)  03:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect there is a COI, but it's rather stale. WilliamH (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ...So are we done yet? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say so, I've closed it. If there's any further developments, I daresay me, Jimbo or Chase me ladies will reopen it. WilliamH (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

16 March 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

It is claimed on the userpage to be a Bell Pottinger Account. I couldn't see anything on the investigation page which said they had been permitted to create a group account, so wanted to add it to this SPI case for the record and for someone to either confirm or deny that this account is allowed. Pontificalibus (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC) Pontificalibus  (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2012 (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

 * Thanks. I'm marking this for close, as there appears to be nothing to do here. The account has been correctly blocked because it is a WP:ROLE account, something which is prohibited unless expressly permitted by the Wikimedia Foundation and even then not for the purpose of editing. WilliamH (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)