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

28 April 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

• BlackstoneTomb ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Looks like a duck, registered yesterday, a week after TimHowards ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) was blocked by user:Doc James and recreated Draft:Pupil (company)‎ using sources with access-date=2020-04-16. GSS  ^💬 03:15, 28 April 2020 (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

Blocked based on behavior. Closing.
 —  Berean Hunter (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC) reply

19 July 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

• JLmornt ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

SPA only registered to recreate their deleted draft. It was last created by a CowboyKing sock. Possible duck/meat. GSS  ^💬 03:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• @ Ivanvector: I'm not sure if you noticed the access dates in the references, they read access-date=9 June 2020 and a similar mistake was made by the previous sock. Also, if JLmornt work for the company as they claim and can write a "perfect article" themself why they hired and paid $600 to someone else. GSS  ^💬 14:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

I have made proper disclosure on my page. I already stated I am from the company and not sure what else I need to do. I am following the rules. I am not another person and understand why you would think that, but I am not someone other than an employee of the company as disclosed. We previously hired someone without knowing the rules but are following them now. I can verify through email if necessary. -- JLmornt ( talk) 04:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Well, a similar disclosure was made by the previous sock as well. GSS  ^💬 04:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Well, I can’t speak for others. Whatever disclosure they made is what they made. You’ve made an accusation and I’ve offered to prove via email I’m from the company but all you’ve done is make accusations. I’m confused on how you can do so when I’m not who you think I am and offered to prove otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLmornt ( talk • contribs) 04:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC) I see that disclosure and it says “we manage it’s services.” How is that me when I “am” from Pupil and not just someone who manages “it’s services?”-- JLmornt ( talk) 05:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC) reply

What else is needed from me so we can move forward? I’ve offered to prove my identity and haven’t seen any evidence I am who you accuse me of being. I have followed all rules and would like to continue to contribute under applicable guidelines and policies. -- JLmornt ( talk) 19:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

• This account is  Unlikely to both BlackstoneTomb ( talk · contribs) and TimHowards ( talk · contribs), the most recent socks that I see in the archive. However, the technical data is unusual in a way that makes me doubt the conclusion. If I take the data at face value, it strongly contradicts JLmornt's claim of being an employee of the company. JLmornt's version of the draft is not substantially similar to the socks' version: there's not much info in the drafts to compare, and the sources used are different. I'll leave it to a clerk to decide what to do here. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 13:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC) reply
•  Clerk note: If the official CU result is "unlikely", I'm not seeing enough here to override that. I have however tagged Draft:Pupil (company) for WP:G11. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply

04 February 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

• CarolynMP ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

–  Joe ( talk) 09:06, 4 February 2022 (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

Confirmed based on ticket:2022020210007346. Blocked and tagged. –  Joe ( talk) 09:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

08 February 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

• StaceyMichel ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

–  Joe ( talk) 22:00, 8 February 2022 (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

And another. CU is  Likely, plus behavioural and offwiki evidence in ticket:2022020210007346. –  Joe ( talk) 22:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply