Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Webdesignbb/Archive

01 June 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

I am creating this report to establish a record and possibly enlist assistance to locate other socks.

The sockmaster Webdesignbb has been blocked for some time. I have just blocked the first two sockpuppets listed above for block evasion. The third (Curriet) is discussed below.

On User talk:Webdesignbb the account is identified as belonging to Fred Pierce, president of BnB Websites, a PR firm established to promote Bed and Breakfast inns through Wikipedia; see their webinar advertised at http://bnbwebsites.com/wikipedia
 * Background


 * Evidence
 * User Fpierce is an obvious sockpuppet belonging to Fred Pierce. The account was created after Webdesignbb was blocked.
 * User Starwars57 was created after Webdesignbb was blocked, and has substantially similar contributions (see deleted contributions) each containing articles on Bed and Breakfast inns by the same names.
 * User Curriet created the Bleckley Inn article, which is advertised at http://bnbwebsites.com/wikipedia that it was created by BnB Websites. This may be a meatpuppet or employee of BnB Websites. Curriet was created in February 2010, a few months prior to the creation of Webdesignbb in July 2010. Curriet was blocked for 2 weeks last year for abusing multiple accounts; see Sockpuppet investigations/Curriet/Archive.

I have deleted a couple articles created by these accounts. Typical signatures I observe in these articles:
 * No assertion of notability except perhaps that the building is historical
 * Typically 1-line lead sentence followed by a history section
 * Citations give the appearance of being well-sourced but the sources fail to mention the article topic (and fail to meet the significant coverage requirements of WP:GNG)

In view of the blatantly promotional purpose of the sockmaster's company web site, I don't believe it would be "fishing" to check whether other related accounts not listed above are also evading the sockmaster's block to create B&amp;B-related articles &mdash; provided that CU is useful for analyzing accounts with sparse recent activity. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2011 (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
– I'm afraid all reported accounts are for CU purposes; I don't think CU can help here. –MuZemike 23:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Too bad. I thought that may be the case but felt it didn't hurt to ask. For future reference, how long must an account be inactive before it's considered stale? ~Amatulić (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Curriet hasn't edited in like a year, so I don't really see a point in a block just yet. Relist if new evidence comes to light, I guess. And Amatulic, check your email for an answer to your question. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)