Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tristan.sbry/Archive

05 June 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

I noticed several accounts that were prevented by an edit filter from being created and discovered this sock/spam farm. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Hello, My name is Eric, I work in a digital agency specialized in copywriting and translation and whose clients are brands. I am the one who supervises the various users of the accounts you have listed, so I am taking the liberty to respond to you. I will try to answer all the points you have raised:

One account for one person:

All the accounts you have listed are personal accounts, which means they are each used by a different and only one person. All these accounts “belong” to the same digital agency, and we are several working together in the same office, which is why we all have the same IP. But each account is only used by one person, and you may have noticed that it’s always a person who speaks the corresponding language of the page he contributed to, and a different person when the brands are different. Please note that the large quantity of user accounts is essentially due to all the translators we work with, and for every language of the Wikipedia pages concerned.

Respect for Wikipedia Rules & Transparency

For each of our accounts, we have always been totally transparent, and the copywriter or translator behind each account has always made it clear that he belongs to a digital agency, working for a brand. I do not agree when you say we make only promotional edits: indeed we have always asked the community and worked according to their recommendations on each of our Wikipedia contributions. As We have also respected all Wikipedia rules and guidelines from the beginning, and we have received positive feedback from the community. You could check the history of our accounts’ contributions, which prove what I have just said. Here are some links : [] or [] and people we have had contact with : [] or []

Renaming of the original accounts

This leads me to your point of our renamed accounts: We renamed accounts because the community and moderators asked us to do so. In order to respect Wikipedia guidelines, we decided to create individual accounts, with only one person associated with each one. Concerning the “use again” of those old accounts, this was our mistake because we were under the impression that those older accounts would be deleted by Wikipedia. In fact there were not, but we immediately proceeded to “undo” the little contribution made with those accounts. And, again, we were transparent about that change on Wikipedia’s pages.

Similar styles

Your last point about the same “editing styles and grammatical usage” is true. As I previously said, we are all co-workers, and when working on different Wikipedia projects, it is frequent that we share written communication. But only for the purpose of introducing ourselves, for example to the talk page, and before any contribution on talk pages. Of course, we could totally personalize our talk pages if you prefer. I insist that all the writing of every contribution is made by a single and unique person. Indeed our copywriters, by writing and working with specific brands, have become experts of certain domains and have access to unique sources and references.

Conclusion

I hope all my answers will help you to understand how our digital agency and employees work and our wish to enrich Wikipedia content with the community. If you advise us to do things differently or modify something in our account’s approach, we will comply. Of course, we are open to all comments and recommendations. All we want is to contribute and enrich Wikipedia articles in all the languages, and only with the community’s approval.

Thank you very much, Regards, Eric--Eric.608 (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The following accounts are ✅:
 * I don't know whether this is one person or several working together, but they are all in the same place, and many are making promotional edits, or editing on behalf of some commercial interest.
 * Please note that these users have been renamed and two of the original accounts have been used again:
 * User:Champagne Krug →
 * User:Michiko.jp.201 →
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether this is one person or several working together, but they are all in the same place, and many are making promotional edits, or editing on behalf of some commercial interest.
 * Please note that these users have been renamed and two of the original accounts have been used again:
 * User:Champagne Krug →
 * User:Michiko.jp.201 →
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether this is one person or several working together, but they are all in the same place, and many are making promotional edits, or editing on behalf of some commercial interest.
 * Please note that these users have been renamed and two of the original accounts have been used again:
 * User:Champagne Krug →
 * User:Michiko.jp.201 →
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether this is one person or several working together, but they are all in the same place, and many are making promotional edits, or editing on behalf of some commercial interest.
 * Please note that these users have been renamed and two of the original accounts have been used again:
 * User:Champagne Krug →
 * User:Michiko.jp.201 →
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Michiko.jp.201 →
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Just blocked and tagged all of them. I'll leave open for potential further action but its clear these accounts are all working in the same capacity. Similar editing styles and grammatical usage makes me lean towards them all being one person but that's far from certain. NativeForeigner Talk 23:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What I saw more resembled paid advertising than copyediting. I suppose the intentions are positive in having all of these accounts. Policy on paid editing isn't entirely straightforward, but I'd be inclined to say that these are all accounts being used for advertising for a client. I'll defer to an opinion from another clerk though, having made the blocks. NativeForeigner Talk 00:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello NativeForeigner, thank you for your response.

Sorry to be repetitive, but we have always asked the community and worked according to their recommendations on each of our Wikipedia contributions. We have always started by declaring our conflict of interest by opening a discussion on the talk page. Then, also on the talk page, we make an article proposal that respects the previous contributions, even if it could be negative for the brand. Then we ask for the main contributor’s opinion, and finally discuss and modify our first draft. We have always waited for the community’s approval before editing the final article. In light of this, if you have still found contributions that you qualify as advertising, please tell us which ones, and we will be of course be open to modifications or to discussing it with you.

All these matters have been discussed for several months on every talk page of various articles, and we have received some very good feedback from contributors (which can be checked on the talk pages).Of course I agree to discuss it further, but I wonder if this page about “sock puppetry” is the appropriate place?

By the way, one more argument to prove to you that all the accounts you have listed are personal accounts:

We are contributing in 9 languages on Wikipedia and we have specialized copywriters that are brand experts (As you may have noticed, our Wikipedia contributions concern 4 different brands). How could one person master 9 languages and be an expert on 4 brands at the same time?

I agree that our approach on Wikipedia could be a matter of discussion. We know that various modes of thinking about this topic still exist among communities, including in the governing board of Wikipedia. Indeed we have had the opportunity to informally discuss this issue with a member of Wikimedia.

However, because we are particularly aware of this, we endeavor to deeply respect all the rules and recommendations we can find. The extensive amount of positive feedback we have received leads us to believe that our approach is respectable.

I would also add that even the brands we represent have understood the rules of Wikipedia. They respect the community’s work and dedication and have decided to include their information resources in order to improve articles in the best way. []

They also offer the community the translation of the most complete articles that already exist on Wikipedia, without claiming or imposing anything, which is a valuable gift to the Wikipedia objective: to give trustworthy information to everyone.

I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

Regards, --Eric.608 (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Could you please link me to some of these discussions? They would help to clear up these issues, I"m sure. NativeForeigner Talk 07:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

As you requested, here are the links to some of these discussions. To make it more clear for you, I gathered them by subject.

Contributions on a champagne page -         Introducing ourselves on the  talk page, and the subsequent discussions: []

-         Where we worked on the draft of the article: []

-         Main discussion, with this contributor: [] à Feel free to contact her for further information

-         Our contact when having to change our username account: []

Translations about watches -         Introducing ourselves on the page we proposed to translate: []

-         Proposition of our translation to the community on each talk page, of the following languages: [] [] [] [] [] Contributions about a manufacture of watches -         Introducing ourselves on the  talk page, and the subsequent discussions: []

-         Main discussion, with this contributor: []

-         People we contacted and invited to give their opinion: [] [] [] I look forward to answering any questions you may have. Of course, please feel fre to contact anyone we interacted with.

Regards,--Eric.608 (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've been quite busy. I think the key issue in this instance was a lack of identification on the user pages of these accounts. I remind you to utilize NPOV, specifically to heed the WP:COI guidelines as set forth. If I receive an affirmative response from you I will unblock hte accounts, provided that they disclose their relation to Krug on their userpage. NativeForeigner Talk 21:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello NativeForeigner, Thank you for your response, your feedback and above all for your time and your understanding.

As soon as you unblock our accounts, I will inform all of the account holders to update their user pages according to your requirements if that hasn’t already been done by some of them. Concerning your investigation, I will also on my own user page explain and summarize all of our discussions on that topic. So that if someone wants to know more about all of our accounts, he will have transparent answers.

As I have already told you, we are especially careful to respect Wikipedia rules. I think you may have noticed that we have done so, and hope that by putting your advice into action, you will recognize our good will. By the way, we are happy to see that Wikipedia’s communities have offered us some helpful feedback concerning the contributions of our copywriters/translators and their form of dialogue.

Thanks again--Eric.608 (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. Additionally I'd just like to note that it might be better if the accounts add information to talk pages to be reviewed and added by others. It's generally what's recommended to avoid potential COI issues although it is not required, per se. NativeForeigner Talk 16:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

This is well noted, thanks for your feedback.

Concerning the addition of new information to talk pages. This is currently the process that is already in place, we put the content onto the talk pages rather than directly on to the “live page”. In what you mentioned, you indicate that once the content is approved by the other contributors, it is the other users that should place the content onto the “live page”? I have already shared all of your comments to the account holders. As soon as you have unblocked the accounts the other members will be able to access the account and follow your advice. Thanks--Eric.608 (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you read WP:COI it is a recommended course of action. But yes, your interpretation of other users placing the content is correct. NativeForeigner Talk 23:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I replied on yoru talk page. NativeForeigner Talk 23:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion of the individual blocks can continue on user talkpages; nothing further to do here. Closing. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  10:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)