Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Archivesharer
– This SPI case is open.
Archivesharer
Archivesharer (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Populated account categories: confirmed
For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Archivesharer/Archive.
25 May 2012
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Lmpartners (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.
Editing exact same areas since block, [1] and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael de la Force. Яehevkor ✉ 20:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
User and IP also share habit of signing in brackets [2] [3] [4] [5] Яehevkor ✉ 21:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
- Adding Lmpartners above, with similar history and behavior as that of IP 68, and who chronologically precedes the other accounts. Edits to Michael de la Force began only when IP 68 started receiving warnings. 99.153.142.225 (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- All accounts have a fondness for going into other users' talk pages and revising or removing discussion by other accounts: [6], [7], [8]. 99.153.142.225 (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure what LMPartners has said about this, or how it may relate to it.I do not see any history except photographs. What I wrote and you can mark my words; is that you are not telling the truth as editors. You are making claims that items are self-published that are clearly published by international governments which are recognized members of the United Nations. You appear to be running an operation that is very much like high school. You do not seem to be seeking actual knowledge from unless you read it in a PR mag or newspaper. A good PR person can deliver any of the third party things you desire (that is just a matter of money). Ridiculous! But, that is what happens to groups like yours. Another example that is quite poor in thought was; to suggest a journalist that began their career at 20 years of age and worked eighteen years with bona fide press credentials to prove it somehow would inherit their recognition. There may be a lot for all to learn, but do not exempt yourselves. There is always someone or something bigger and better! I do not care if you are sock puppets, or not! You are not great information gatherers. It is good to see Britannica is going full steam ahead. At least they have a track record for using their brains and are not juvenile in their knowledge. How do you think they got information before the mags you want to base your beliefs on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archivesharer (talk • contribs) 21:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I have just checked your logs; there is nothing there from a sock puppet perspective from me, at all. The complaint is bogus garbage! What is your problem? I have not even been working on the article. I agreed with you that it should be deleted. Very odd! (Archivesharer (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC))