Amyxcell

Amyxcell (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
24 October 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Above accounts blocked with exceptions noted

COIN cleanup after deletion of allegation of paid editing, request to take to SPI by User:DGG at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Bert_Martinez Widefox; talk 08:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence links: articles mostly deleted, but internal linked to Bert Martinez one or two steps, and/or listed on his website Money for Lunch

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

Certainly a checkuser should verify any connections and sweep for sleepers, but the blatant online advertisement at www.bertmartinez.com/wikipedia-program/ suggests that this might be another PR company operating like WikiPR, in which the firm hires outside editors to do their dirty work. In that case, sockpuppet investigations will result in endless whack-a-mole activity (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Morning277). They should be banned like WikiPR was. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked and tagged as puppets of Amyxcell, which is  Stale and was already blocked.
Already blocked.
Already blocked.
Now blocked.
Donaldmarkus is already blocked, while Okobr2004 is not currently blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
02 November 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Editing on last undeleted article Money for Lunch of the known set of COI / sock / meat articles linked to Bert Martinez and these blocked accounts. Adding non-RS in attempt to keep it from deletion [1] removing valid maint templates [2] . That edit pattern is similar (unsure if SOCK or MEAT) but that article ties the account. Widefox; talk 10:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The edit histories link many other editors and articles (and IPs via SPAM / COI / paid editing)

Marko Stout history links Newzealand123 [6] User:Cristine nickol:

Alesya Alexandrova history links User:Cristine nickol:

>50 accounts, link with Morning277

There's well over 50 accounts (possibly hundreds or more) linked by articles listed at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Bert_Martinez , several of the accounts edited the article Warren Cassell, Jr. which was previously edited by banned User:Morning277. Widefox; talk 01:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
No sockpuppet investigation of Emilysantoss would be complete without an investigation of her co-workers User:Hillysilly and User:Cristine nickol, see their collaborations here [7]. Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • I think DQ's point is that there are probably multiple sockfarms here. One common thread is fiverr--maybe that is who WMF legal should be contacting. There is one paid editor on fiverr who has had over 100 of her paid jobs deleted. So, basically, she gets the commission, then the work is erased. What a mess! There is probably a role for CU here, but maybe the request should be more targeted. Logical Cowboy (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amatulic, I absolutely understand that CU can help somewhere, I'm just not sure where or where the evidence is. Morning277 is denifitely not New Zealand123 per previous behavior. If there are socks for both groups then this investigation is filled incorrectly. I can't even tell how many sockmasters are being proposed here. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not clear to me which are socks and which meats. I will review this SPI to see what I can do, until then I can only share my working assumption:
    • www.bertmartinez.com/wikipedia-program/ was possibly subcontracting to Fiverr
    • Several Fiverr editors edit overlapping sets of articles. Some may be socks. Why are the clients hiring several at once?
    • They are geographically dispersed
    • At least one of the articles was edited by a sock of Morning277, but having the same client may or may not be as far as it goes. Widefox; talk 23:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

06 December 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


Two new accounts created a few days apart adding poorly sourced, promotional material to BLPs that have a history of similar problems, often against a COI. It's pretty clear these two editors are socks or meatpuppets. Both have a series of well-formatted edits to BLP articles with history of COI problems, made over a short time period, tagged as minor edits: Nygiants123 from 15:06, 29 November 2017 to 15:59, and Jordanyear23 from 14:32, 1 December 2017 to 14:53. Both have used identical formatting when citing Harvard Business School faculty pages: [8] [9].

Given all the past coi editing on the same articles, Nygiants123's attempt to recreate a deleted article while referencing an off-Wikipedia version copy of the previously deleted article (Nygiants123 made the claim at Talk:Joe Vitale (author)), and the sockfarm related to past creation of Joe Vitale (author) (Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_79#Bert_Martinez and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_80#Bert_Martinez_(2)), I think a checkuser might be in order for confirmation of the socking and find related throw-away accounts and sleepers. Ronz (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

This case is being reviewed by Sir Sputnik as part of the clerk training process. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on their Talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

The case is  Stale. Jordanyear23 and Nygiants123 are  Possible to each other. The locations of the two accounts differ but are not necessarily reliable. The user agents match. The CU logs are not helpful but, to the extent anything can be gleaned from them, they do not support the locations of the two accounts listed here. This case should be decided based on behavior. It would be far better to include diffs of the two accounts and compare them to diffs of the master/confirmed socks from the archive. Discussions are much more difficult to parse, and comparing diffs of the two accounts to each other is insufficient.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More