Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Meghan.reilly/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Meghan.reilly

Meghan.reilly (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
05 November 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Users listed here were already detected and blocked by administrator User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry for alt. acc. Vios. for paid editing/advocacy purposes. I am asking for a formal and independent check to confirm his findings and locate any other socks that may have been missed or created after his check. Phearson (talk) 04:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Note that Baltimore00 started User:Baltimore00/Jimmy Moore in their userspace on 21 October (the same day they registered). On 25 October, another user, User:Tenzingnineoneone, created the article Jimmy Moore (author).

On 29 October, Baltimore00 creates User:Baltimore00/Ahmed Samerai. Turns out that Samerai owns something called Sahara Communications, a PR firm. The article on that was created on 24 October, by User:Focusanddetermination08.

On 31 October, Baltimore00 creates User:Baltimore00/C151 Resorts. There is an article Hanno Soth, who is connected to C151 Resorts created by User:Tenzingnineoneone.

All of the userspace articles were out-of-process deletions, since they were created prior to the blocking of the user. In any case, the deletions were unnecessary and appear punitive. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added User:Vegas247 who has extensively edited Michael Shulman (writer) an article created by Tenzingnineoneone and has a lexical similarity to the naming of Baltimore00 and Chicago2011. Note also that Tenzingnineoneone is fairly obviously continuing the promtional editing begun by blocked editor User:Taorminafilms. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused here. How are these out-of-process if the user:Meghan.reilly was banned previously? Phearson (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am unaware of any ban discussion for that user - in fact, they are not currently blocked. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, I have made a mistake in tagging these articles under the presumption that this user was previously banned, but instead was only under suspicion of abusing multiple accounts. Would the best action to take at this time be to undelete these articles, and would community discussion regarding this user be appropriate as well? Phearson (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

The newer accounts are a bit complicated, so I'll try it list it out as clearly as possible:

16 November 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

User revealed on my userpage that he is User:Chicago2011, ANI says that he needs to contact Ban Appeals Subcommittee from that account and not create more socks. Phearson (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
20 December 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

This account's only edits were to ask about an article I G5 deleted for being created by Meghan.reilly. Endorsing for confirmation and sleepers. I'm adding the IP because they also asked and signed exactly the same way as Skywagon, but obviously there won't be a comment on them. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

The writing style seems completely different then previously. Phearson (talk) 04:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we're revisiting Meghan.reilly, it may be worth noting that User:Focusanddetermination08 appears to have taken over editing AEBN which was previously edited by the now blocked sock User:Baltimore00. This article has had a history of promotional editors. Also, User:Tenzingnineoneone (a suspected sockpuppet in an archived case) was recently blocked as a sock of User:Petermcelwee. I have not looked into any connection between that account and the previously named socks, but it might be worth someone's while to do so. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

Red X Unrelated. Meghan.reilly (talk · contribs) is  Stale, but comparing Skywagon5 (talk · contribs) with other accounts mentioned here and in the archive produced no matches with IP ranges, ISPs, or user agents, nor do they appear to be editing from the same general geographic location. There are no other accounts that could feasibly be connected with Skywagon. Combined with Phearson's noting that the style of writing is completely different, I see no real reason to disbelieve Skywagon's self-identification in his first edit. I think it is likely that he either searched for his organization here on Wikipedia or on Google, which tends to update its records with new Wikipedia articles very, very rapidly - often within seconds of creation (I have sometimes wondered if they have a spider watching Wikipedia's new page log). J.delanoygabsadds 06:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Meghan.reilly/Archive&oldid=1138675223"