The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

Suspected sock puppeteer

Emetman (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets

• Joebobby (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
• TLVEWR (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
• 12.103.203.218 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
• SnowPart (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
• 76.79.239.75 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
• 68.173.2.196 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
• Handle in the Wind (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
• Binyaminyigal (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Report submission by

• Mosmof (talk) 02:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

• Evading blocks/3RR in Ronn Torossian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This is a re-surfacing of a user that was blocked following Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Emetman, for sockpuppetry in 5W Public Relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 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.
• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• Please see previous case at Wikipedia: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)[reply]

• I have updated Wikipedia: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)[reply]

Conclusions

There appears to have been sock puppetry. The above RFCU case came back  Possible. 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)[reply]

---