Misplaced Pages

:Sockpuppet investigations/Pearljambandaid: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:13, 9 November 2014 edit Unbroken Chain (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers32,193 edits Adding new report for Pearljambandaid. (TW)Next edit →
(No difference)

Revision as of 00:13, 9 November 2014


Pearljambandaid

Pearljambandaid (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 Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Pearljambandaid/Archive.


09 November 2014

– A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.

Suspected sockpuppets

I think we have a sock-farm, two of them actually, It's one situation so I'm putting them all on one page so a checkuser can sort out the connections either behaviorally or technically. First, I believe Pearljambandaid and Sowhatchawant are one user. I am basing this off username similarity (both are related to 90's bands) and boths sole and only contributions have been to promote SMH Records. SMH Records was created then later deleted and recreated, I can't look at the actually first version prior to deletion and the most recent recreation to get an idea of the similarities. Some of those other things is the attempts to procure notability by association of the offer of record contracts, ie Jayz and Lindsay Lohan. The sources were also largely the same. The verbage that at the very least So Whatchawant is a pr oar a sock is his usage of the word "professional" which I think is a slip up I believe on his part because as a paid professional he would be in that mindset and not actually building the encyclopedia. Now the other tell I think is that they have a detailed knowledge of the inner workings and employees of the record label ]. This leads us to the article that cements the deal Michael Bentley (producer). SWYW nominates it for deletion saying there is no credible sources and later urging me "to go after" I added the changes last night but forgot to sign-in. You removed the info and put on the page that info was not needed but it is and verified with credible links such as MTV News and Billboard about the company. I don't quite understand how you say it shouldn't be added when it's reliable and part of the company. You also removed stuff previously a few weeks back some I agreed with and some I didn't. You also had the wrong information such as the "video that dissed kim kardashian". It needs to read clear on what that is. Now with research on SMH Records - I found someone who claims to be part of the company but isn't. If you want to "go after" a page here is one for you https://en.wikipedia.org/Michael_Bentley_(producer) Sowhatchawant (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC) (pasted by Hiab) So now with the other three editors they all are using the same language to denounce SWYW with the same verbage as seen on the talkpage here ]. I think there is either Good hand bad hand editing or two seperate promoting companies in a dispute with each other. I'm also notifying the original administrators of this partly because I'm pretty irritated with how this was actually handled at the onset and if it had been looked at for the issue and not the red herring that was being presented it might have partially avoided this mess. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

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
Categories: