Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheEditor2000001/Archive

25 December 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

All three four  five six are Special Purpose Accounts whose only edits have been to attack the John Ducas (investor) page and try to get it deleted. Fraudbuster and Throwaway, in December, say the same things that Floridainvestor87 said a month earlier at a different page; rather surprising if they are not the same person..

FraudBustersTeam echoes claims by Floridainvestor87  that Ducas's fame is based on lying to media outlets, who believe him and print the lies. FraudBustersTeam links to an attack website, which echoes claims by Floridainvestor that the subject's "clients" are actually fake accounts purchased by the subject and that Ducas hired professional Wikipedia editors to write his Wikipedia page.

Throwaway1998 echoes claims by Floridainvestor87 [] that Ducas paid someone to create his Wikipedia page, and that the picture in the article was actually taken at school. MelanieN (talk) 07:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

12/25/14: Adding Melaniem82, a brand new account whose first and so-far only edit was to remove the AfD tag from the John Ducas article. 

12/25/14: Adding TheDiscrediter, who quotes extensively from the attack website.

12/25/14: Adding TheEditor2000001, who removed the AfD tag from the article, by reverting my restoration of it. They previously added a reference to the article. Later they added "in his school" to the picture, echoing Floridainvestor and Throwaway.

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Melaniem82 should be blocked under the username policy even regardless of the sockpuppetry, as the name is far too similar to MelanieN's username to be a coincidence.  Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 11:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually I don't have a problem with it. But thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Checkuser comments. It is that the following accounts are socks.

The accounts are socks; however, one has openly admitted they are classmates of the article subject (and thus appropriately declared their COI), and it is quite possible the other is as well based on the technical evidence.

The following accounts are ❌ to any others:

Finally, it is noteworthy that the article was created by what is essentially a throw-away account, and there are several other throw-away accounts that have edited this article and its related AfD/talk page, both supportive of the article and seeking its deletion/questioning its factuality. The article itself seems to be very problematic (120 clients is a drop in the bucket and a magnitude or more fewer than what an ordinary financial advisor would carry, for example, but most Wikipedians wouldn't know that), and this in itself may have a bearing on the ultimate fate of the article. Risker (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've indeffed TheEditor2000001 and Melaniem82 (no tags). No action against any other account. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

01 February 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Pretty open-and-shut to me. First and only edit so far is this, which is consistent with the vandalism on this BLP that most of the socks have engaged in. Should note that the source supported a slightly different number, but one that was probably a legitimate typo - regardless, it did support the claim. Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 11:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, looks like the history of this SPI wasn't sorted out last time, so the master could be any of the ones blocked in the archive. Doh. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 11:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * How has this been allowed to sit here for five days? The account is still engaging in the same dodgy editing. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * is ✅ to from the archive.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  23:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There's also who is ✅ to TheEditor2000001. The entire article is a sockfest so I've semi-protected it for a few weeks. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  23:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Accounts blocked and tagged. I've also moved the case to TheEditor2000001, as FloridaInvestor87 wasn't found to be technically related to any of the accounts in the previous case. Mike V • Talk 01:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

08 April 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Obvious sock is obvious. First edit to the usual target page with a perfectly formatted PROD. Next edits were to User:Risker's talk page, showing a clear understanding of Wikipedia's structure. AIV somehow wouldn't deal with this, despite the obvious nature of the socking. CU requested for sleepers Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 15:51, 8 April 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

 * The two are connected given they are editing from the same ISP and city. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  20:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Account blocked and tagged. Mike V • Talk 22:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)