Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Cschiffner

User:Cschiffner

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets
 * Report submission by

Toddst1 (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Evidence


 * Recently WP:SPA User: Cschiffner created a page for a company Plaxall, stating "Content added by Plaxall (the content owner) info release located on the bottom of the page."


 * When questioned about copyright issues, User: Cschiffner posted on Talk:Plaxall:
 * "This article has been created by Christopher Schiffner, Plaxall's IT Manager. He can be contacted at the contact found below AND on the Plaxall website. The information at plaxall.com/about.php has been released for use on wikipedia and it is noted at the bottom of that page."


 * a G-search on "Christopher Schiffner" shows up a blog where Plaxall is his client at http://www.schiffner.com/index.php/category/technology/, indicating that Mr. Schiffner is indeed related to Plaxall.


 * Later that day, User: 70.107.249.106 who had previously edited several Wikipedia articles over the past year also contributed to Talk:Plaxall.


 * Also that day Plaxall was listed on AFD.  See Articles for deletion/Plaxall


 * User: Cschiffner posted comments at Articles for deletion/Plaxall on why the article should be kept, as did User: 70.107.249.106.


 * However this edit shows User: 70.107.249.106 making edits to the Wikipedia page for Tetris on December 5 2007 that are almost identical to the Mr. Schiffner's comments on his blog at the URL above dated December 6 2007.

Note, the user Cschiffner acknowledged being Plaxall's IT manager, confirming a WP:COI. However, while I agree that the two are likely the same individual, the issue on the AfD appear to be caused by unfamilarity with the process rather than intent to deceive. The initial post to it by Cschiffner was a statement or comment that did not mention a delete/keep recommendation. It was only after seeing others post bolded "Delete" opinions that he returned under the IP 70.107.249.106 and added a "Keep" opinion. Because it does not appear to me to be intentional deceipt, I suggest a warning to the user and having a notice posted on the user pages or their user talk pages clarifying that they are the same person - to avoid any future confusion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments


 * I agree with Barek's observation. Toddst1 (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No need to look at this one. The article is deleted and there's no apparent attempt to deceive. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Conclusions