Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Usgpo/Archive

Evidence submitted by Sole Soul
GPO which appears in 2 names stands for Government Printing Office and the IP belongs to the same agency. These accounts edited United States Government Printing Office, Robert C. Tapella (the CEO of GPO) and Federal Digital System. The IP address made this edit in talk page in response to an image copyright notice.

They edited these articles with promotional PR language, see these early versions,.

The worst part is that has created new article Bob Tapella after I removed the promotional language from Robert C. Tapella.

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
I have informed the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee about this on their noticeboard (see section in Meta). –MuZemike 02:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC) I'm marking this for closure for another clerk or checkuser to archive. Whilst Gpopr1 is possibly related to the master, it's too stale to do anything about (it hasn't edited in over two years). Likewise, Printer25 hasn't edited in 2+ years and JustbeCalm in 1+ years. The only two that show a recent correlation are the IP and Hello1237 (which could be attributed to the account holder of Hello1237 simply editing whilst logged out). Essentially, I don't see how two or more accounts are currently disrupting Wikipedia. I think your case at WP:COIN should be pursued if you believe the editor behind Hello1237 and possibly the IP have such a conflict of interest.
 * I will not pursue anything because if the COI is not already clear, it will never be. Thank you. Sole Soul (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that my last sentence was meant to signify that based on my review, the IP is likely Hello1237 editing whilst logged out, thus they're likely to be the same person. Though there's no obvious issue in relation to sock policy based on their edits, ie no abuse of the two accounts. You are right to pursue COI issues at WP:COIN. NJA  (t/ c)  18:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with NJA's analysis. Closed as on SPI's part. Tim Song (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)