Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SapphireOne

SapphireOne

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

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SapphireOne/Archive.

28 July 2016

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.

Suspected sockpuppets

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

New user has re-created an article (SapphireOne) that has been repeatedly deleted under WP:A7 and WP:A11 - the original author has been indefinitely blocked and this author has posted the article in an identical format. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• This is actually the second account to emerge, the first was SaphireOne which was pounced on and quickly blocked by Faithlessthewonderboy (talk · contribs). Additionally, the accounts made a preliminary attempt at creating their article at Sapphireone. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

• Additionally, our editor doesn't seem to grasp the concept of copyright either - on both occasions I've deleted the article its been created by copying and pasting information verbatim from copyrighted sources. At the rate they are going these accounts are going to end up indef-blocked on WP:COPYVIO. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
• I flagged the article for CSD yesterday because I was suspicious about its significance. I later removed the tag because I thought I had mistakenly applied it; the editor arrogantly challenged my CSD request asking to "enlighten [them]" as to why it should be removed. I now see that this article has been repeatedly created and support a block, as "repeated uploading of copyrighted material" is listed on WP:VANDAL. Seba5tien (^talk/_contribs) 05:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me guys. This kind of personal harassment is not right. I except some good judgement from Wikipedia administrator. Thanks _ User:RbABC , 30 July 2016

• OTRS agent (verify): See Ticket#2016072910003892. (t) Josve05a (c) 21:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • See note in ticket. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
• Quick update – as of July 31st, User:RbABC is working on the same "SapphireOne" article in the sandbox and as a userspace draft (they have requested feedback from another editor), and has also posted that blue highlighted message across their userpages. Seba5tien (^talk/_contribs) 05:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

@TomStar81: I don't understand where we are with this case. Is it resolved? Are we going to allow RbABC to continue editing as the (hopefully) sole account? (The OTRS ticket is useless to anyone who doesn't have access to OTRS. It would really be more helpful to summarize what it says, at least what's relevant to this case.)--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't provide any meaningful summary without significantly violating confidentiality. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

After reviewing the behavioral evidence, I've blocked RbABC. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Bbb23 and BU Rob13: I am informed that RbABC is not the same person as the other two accounts listed here, but more important to the case at hand is the change in behavior from the RbABC account: over the last few days, this editor has calmed down quite a bit, and has demonstrated by their contributions an ability to edit constructively. Perhaps nowhere is this more evident then on this editor's user page and user talk page, where the blue outline concerning admin behavior has been removed by the editors own account, and on my talk page, where the editor admits that s/he fired without aiming such as it were. I would therefore petition to have the RbABC (talk · contribs) account unblocked provisionally and released into my care for the time being. For my part, I am willing to adopt this user for the time being, as I believe we have may have a worth while contributor in the making here. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not my block, but I can say that RbABC and JohnAdamsSapphireOne are  Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

My original block was based on public on-wiki evidence, including the following:

1. RbABC was created 1.5 hours after JohnAdamsSapphireOne was blocked.
2. The topic areas obviously overlap in large ways that cannot be explained by chance.
3. Both accounts engaged in promotional edits that looked largely the same, often on the same pages: [1] [2]
4. The original version of the draft at User:RbABC/sandbox bore similarities to the draft at Draft:Sapphireone, including a word-for-word identical sentence as follows: "SapphireOne ERP financial accounting and business enterprise accounting software solution provides Accounts, Inventory, Job/Project Management, Assets, HR , Payroll, Document management, Business Activity Statement (BAS), Standard Business Reporting (SBR), VoIP Softphone, Customer Relationship Management (CRM) all in the one application."
5. Both draft versions also use the image File:SapphireOne-The-ERP-CRM-Business-Enterprise-Financial-Accounting-Software.png. Given the unusual file name, it's unlikely this was found without knowing where it was.
6. Both users added this company to the same navbox, which is again an unusual edit which is unlikely to occur twice by completely independent editors in a short span of time: [3] [4]

It's possible this is meatpuppetry rather than sockpuppetry, but by a previous ArbCom decision, "For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets." Any uninvolved administrator (including Bbb23) is welcome to unblock if they believe the evidence isn't convincing enough for a finding of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, but I think this is very clear. An unblock could also be requested on the original account. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• There's been no further comment on this case. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Just noting for posterity that RbABC admitted to meatpuppetry, but I've since unblocked as per WP:AGF/WP:LASTCHANCE on the assumption he would comply with paid-contribution disclosures and edit positively. So far he appears to have done both. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

---