Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Emetman

User:Emetman

 * Suspected sock puppeteer


 * Suspected sock puppets


 * Report submission by
 * Mosmof (talk) 02:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Evidence
 * Evading blocks/3RR in . This is a re-surfacing of a user that was blocked following Requests for checkuser/Case/Emetman, for sockpuppetry in . The accounts were blocked for trying to suppress negative information about the firm, and the users are now doing the same in the article for the firm's president.
 * The M.O. is the same - editor would cite a specious rationale or non-existent policy (in this case, blogs, even those written for major publications by well known professional writers, are not allowed), and delete negative material, including material not sourced to blogs as well.
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * Comments
 * Listen, Administrator, editors who have not yet touched this page, please, take a look rationally. See passed the "credible sources" and the solid references. Understand that just because a reference is valid doesn't make the placement on Wikipedia right or acceptable. Mosmof says she or he is just being a good Wikipedian, but likes to put in "valid references" that show the downside and other bad issues. This user has become as obsessed with Torossian as the single article IP addresses users seem to be. Maybe the best course here is to take the page down. Maybe there is no need for Torossian to have a page. It is not unbiased, it is awful, and the editors seems to take great pains to make "valid" edits that show a history of bad, while the fact that the company and the CEO have clients, have staff, are well regarded by the hundreds of clients who use them should be worth something, yet the editors who destroy this page and the 5W page seem to think that 5 years of history is summed up by Jeff Goldberg and FailedMessiah - footnotes, not features. Footnotes my friends, not features.TLVEWR (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In my case, have simply added relevant content from 2007 and the same NYT Article. What makes it sockpuppetry to do so ? Unless Mosmof believes negative content is ok but sockpuppetry is positive content ? Is that what he is saying ? Mosmof seems to be a sockpuppet.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.103.203.218 (talk) 10:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see previous case at Requests for checkuser/Case/Emetman. Sockpuppet abuse at 5W Public Relations and related articles has been extremely disruptive, and a checkuser request would be well-warranted. — Satori Son 14:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have updated Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Emetman to include all the accounts in this request, and listed it at WP:RFCU. This is now the 3rd Emetman request. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

There appears to have been sock puppetry. The above RFCU case came back. The edit patterns of the checked accounts seems to indicate that it is either sock or meat puppetry. However, the accounts stopped about a month ago. Perhaps they got the message that socking was not allowed. How about we tag all the accounts as suspected socks and leave it at that. Jehochman Talk 16:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Conclusions