Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ZeroesAndOnes/Archive

01 January 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Dzan2583 is rather lyrical about Feith Systems and votes against removal of the article. Strange enough he dedicated the first two of his three edits ever to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/FSS Initial. Alaynep dedicated all his two edits to voting against removal of Feith Systems. No other edits at all. Scvff: After a five year winter sleep, Scvff suddenly shows up for his second edit ever so to vote against removal of Feith Systems], failing to understand why the article was nominated for deletion for advertising. IP 2600:1002:B02E:8A31:0:15:7C03:D701 removed the WP:COI-tag, referring to the Talk:Feith Systems and that the case is solved (what the talk page clearly shows was not the case.)

173.161.233.41: an IP working on both Feith Systems and User:ZeroesAndOnes/sandbox. Most remarkable is that ZeroesAndOnes is the renamed version of UserFSS, what looks remarkably much at the full name of Feith Systems: Feith Systems and Software, Inc. I have no doubt the IP and ZeroesAndOnes are identical, both logged out and logged in version of the same person. But strange enough, IP and PhillyPartTwo also seems to be a logged out and a logged in version of each other, working together on [User:PhillyPartTwo/sandbox]. And hey, that sandbox article is about Feith Systems. But that article was placed by ZeroesAndOnes with just minor edits from PhillyPartTwo. Even more interesting is the discussion about WP:COI on Talk:Feith Systems between PhillyPartTwo (operating under the cloak MPH) and UserFSS (later to be renamed ZeroesAndOnes) on one side and WikiDan) on the other side. And then there is the already blocked account Feithsystems (falling foul of the naming conventions), what was later blanked by UserFSS

To show more of PhillyPartTwo Feith-promotion: amongst others, , , , and.

The first four sockpuppets all voted against removal of Feith Systems at Articles for deletion/Feith Systems.

It is a whole confusing system but to my opinion they all are the same user. It does not seem unlikely that we have a whole sock farm here with sleepers waiting to be awakened when needed, so a check on them seems logic to me. The Banner talk 01:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

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


 * I have no idea who Dzan2583, Scvff, or Alaynep are. They are people voting that have every right to their opinions that should not be summarily dismissed. To say they are all me is incorrect and specious. I really have nothing else for you because this entire process is confusing and strange. That being said, I think that argument that the Feith Systems article is in no way different than any other of that company's competitions' articles and is being singled out, and if you delete this article you need to delete all the others, holds water. Please elaborate for me how the other similar companies mentioned are different than this one, and maybe I'll understand more. Or put them all up for nomination. Regardless, it would seem to a layperon as me that your decision has already been made regardless of comment or discussion, from anyone. I maintain that regardless of authorship, the company (and the article) remains notable and unique it its field, at least as even or more than other similar companies that exist on Wikipedia. --ZeroesAndOnes (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * is . --Rschen7754 07:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note User:PhillyPartTwo/sandbox. --Rschen7754 07:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * - I suspect that this is a paid editing firm - note PhillyPartTwo's edits in 2010, and the SPA nature of the other accounts. Rschen7754 07:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @Rschen7754 (talk): Hahaha, that's hilarious. I wish I were getting paid. You can most certainly lay your 'I suspect' to rest. If I only had a dollar for every article I've ever made an edit on... --MPH (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

✅ the following accounts are related: ❌ from everything else, including each other: There are technical signs that indicate that the accounts in the ✅ groups may not the same person, but the evidence definitely suggests that the account holders are related and working in tandem. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * (recreated after the original UserFSS account was renamed to ZeroesAndOnes, probably by accident)
 * (recreated after the original UserFSS account was renamed to ZeroesAndOnes, probably by accident)
 * (recreated after the original UserFSS account was renamed to ZeroesAndOnes, probably by accident)
 * (recreated after the original UserFSS account was renamed to ZeroesAndOnes, probably by accident)
 * Blocked all confirmed accounts due to the level of disruption. The unrelated accounts are SPAs and I would not be surprised if they were never used again. Blocking first IP for 1 month. Rschen7754 17:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)