Editorkabaap (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Suspected sockpuppets

• Idiosyncratic philosopher (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Sarkatilash (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tkdchamp10 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

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

SPA Promotional accounts exploiting Wikipedia w/ possible paid editing. On 17 April 2013 Idiosyncratic philosopher creates Htm2pdf and the same day it is speedied. Idiosyncratic philosopher is Off line untill 12:43, 19 April 2013 adds a copy of the deleted article to his sandbox and shortly after adds request for article creation at 17:45, 19 April 2013. Creates new user account (Sarkatilash) at 17:54, 19 April 2013 and recreates spam article Htm2pdf at 16:49, 20 April 2013. I suspect Tkdchamp10 might be "the client". I've seen patterns emerging where accounts are created for the purpose of editing the sandbox, perhaps to do a final copy edit (such as this) prior to the "paid" account creating article in mainspace. Hu12 (talk) 12:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

• It is true that i created the article from the sandbox of idiosyncratic philosopher but because i saw the create new article request and when i searched it on google, the wiki page link of idisyncratic philosopher came into my light. I did it as it was an easy article to start with.Sarkatilash (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would appear unlikely that that within 9 minutes of the article request being made, you somehow found that request in a Google search and immediatly created an account for the purpose of re-posting it. Infact, your re-created version of the article has a false and deceptive edit summary of; "Edited version with reliable sources for technology support.", but is an exact copy of the idiosyncratic philosopher sandbox article. They are the same down to the identical misspelling of the word Bhtm2pdf under the section "Business model". Seems you created an alternative account(s) to confuse or deceive editors in order to re-post rejected content.  Looks like a duck to me--Hu12 (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• CheckUser requested - Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention - It seems fairly clear that all of these accounts are in some way related, but I'd like to know if they are related technically, or if there are any other existing accounts that CU would technically link. NativeForeigner ^Talk 21:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Checkuser note: Checkusers, please check CU-l before responding here. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Likely Editorkabaap (talk · contribs), Hihimanshu70 (talk · contribs), Idiosyncratic philosopher (talk · contribs), Sarkatilash (talk · contribs).
•  Unrelated Tkdchamp10 -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Clerk note: I've blocked all the accounts indefinitely for promotional editing and sockpuppetry. Closing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]