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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

CPVIO is a sockpuppet of someone. He/she created a deletion request a week ago for a large number of Michelin Guide related articles because they're supposedly copyright infringements here. This seems like quite a large step forward for someone whose account was created that same day. They have been asked to reveal who they are on the discussion, but have so far ignored those requests. Their current userpage lists suggestions by AJHingston. According to both their talk pages, they have never talked. AJHingston has also commented on the deletion request. Miyagawa (talk) 09:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also wanted to say that the username appears to be an attempt to use WP:CPVIO as a type of username in order to create authority. Miyagawa (talk) 09:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. I don't see how opening a AfD for 4 related articles all infringing on the same book is a copyright violation. 2. AJHingston has neither agreed with me on this subject not even voted on this issue. 3. This is not the forum for complaints on naming issues if one has been made? 4. User:Miyagawa has already over reached himself in this discussion! CPVIO (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I endorse this SPI as it is really unbelievable that CPVIO is a genuine editor. His very first edit on his own userpage makes it straight clear that we have a sockpuppet here. Unfortunately, I have no clue who is hiding behind this account name. The Banner talk 13:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I would comment that AJHingston can't be a sock of CPVIO because his account was created five years earlier. If there is socking involving both of them, it's the other way round. AJH has a considerable involvement in AfD but appears not to concentrate on copyright and does give good reasoned opinions in the examples I've looked at. Peridon (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In hindsight, I think the AJHingston link is unlikely at best. The suggestion links on CPVIO's userpage are odd as the two otherwise haven't interacted, but the type of postings the two have made make it clear that they probably aren't the same person. The actions of CPVIO however remain consistent with a sockpuppet, but as The Banner said, just not sure who is behind it. Miyagawa (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I would agree that it is likely that CPVIO is a sock of someone. AfD so early in one's career isn't all that common. Peridon (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I can confirm that I am not CPVIO nor can I throw light on their identity. Like others I am mystified as to CPVIO's actions, and it is easy to suspect a troll, but I commented precisely because the AFD seemed so odd. I know enough about the Michelin Guides and copyright to feel that I could contribute usefully. As pointed out, I do not agree with CPVIO, but have not confined my responses to his. It would be helpful if CPVIO were willing to be more open about him or her self - you will note that I actually use my own name and even offer enough information on my user page to enable me to be identified precisely. To be fair to them, though, CPVIO did alert me to this discussion so I am glad to be able to clear things up. --AJHingston (talk) 09:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that unless I have missed something, CPVIO has not actually denied participating in WP under another identity. His or her response has concentrated merely on their right to raise the issue they did. Which raises an interesting question for this process. --AJHingston (talk) 12:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• AJHingston: "Defending yourself against claims" says that if we are not a socks we have nothing to worry about, I hope that is true ?
• Copyright ain't popular, disclosing my REALNAME, etc. will invite more harassment, so Wikipedia:Anonymity is required.
• Peridion: - The AfD process is hard; the guide don't explain how templates and cats and articles R nominated 2gether which takes ages to fix. This is why copyright-vios are common. The deletion forum is stacked in favor of users like Miyagawa who can call on their buddies to derail the discussion from professional to personal lines and there are also users like Dream Focus who opposes all deletion on principle. In the end it is all a big waste of time too. So I can see that see new users don't vote in AfD.
• The Banner or should I call you The Puppeteer? - I saw that this SPI is your idea when when you were asked to derail the discussion by Miyagawa . You don't respect the WP:SOCKS policy - you have obfuscated your identity twice but failed to hide your real identity. Explain your own dirty socks [1] [2] [3] so many accounts which are operating under fake attribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CPVIO (talk • contribs) 22:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I invited The Banner to participate in the AfD discussion as you had listed on your sandbox a bunch of his Michelin related articles that you intended to AfD too. Seeing as I found out about the AfD related to my article as it was on my watchlist and not because I was informed, I thought it best to let him know. Also to be clear, we're not asking for your real name. Just your main account. Your editing does not follow the pattern of a brand new editor, although it does show that you are not all too experienced as you repeatedly fail to sign your posts. Your opinion piece above about the AfD process itself proves that CPVIO cannot be your only account. If you were to follow the procedures for linking accounts as mentioned at WP:SOCK#LEGIT. The only purpose I can see there which may warrant your current behaviour would be a clean start, but even then the refusal to disclose the main account could be seen as an attempt to avoid scrutiny. Miyagawa (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Further evidences of sock CPVIO=OrenBochman OrenBochman appears to have a bias against Michelin-restaurants as he tag-bombed several Michelin-related articles and raised a bunch of pointy concerns, eg as you can see in Talk:Aan de Poel. In all these cases he was quickly reverted. If you compare CPVIO's AfD with OrenBochman's writing-style you will find they are absolutely the same, eg. numbered list of concerns, use of "P.S.S" [4], use of bold characters, the fact that he sometimes forgets to sign etc etc. Cavarrone (talk) 07:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are looking for a reason for sockpupperty, I will give you a more than probable one. CPVIO nominated for deletion the article List of Michelin starred restaurants in Ireland, that was started and mainly edited by User:The Banner. The Banner had recently sent to AfD the article Dvora Bochman, an article that User:OrenBochman has created about her mother. The CPVIO AfD appears as a retaliatory action against The Banner (even if "masked" by the other co-nominated articles), and it is useful to note that OrenBochman has already started in the past retaliatory deletion requests, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive756#Mass_speedy_deletion_requests_by_User:OrenBochman, for which he was warned, admonished and deprived of his rollback privileges. Furthermore, as pointed above, CPVIO's sandbox makes it clear his real target was User:The Banner and his articles. Cavarrone (talk) 08:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Digging a bit, as further evidence I have found in this response to a complain about his actions in restaurant-related articles that Oren Bochman wrote I have taken time out to look at some of the other stubs in the restaurant project to better understand the norms and I've noticed stylistic, grammatical and omission errors in a few of the articles as well as a major CPVIO (emphasis mine). Cavarrone (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think AJHingston is involved, but I'm puzzled by those mentions on CPVIO's user page. I can't see where AJH suggested those things. If he's still watching this, perhaps he could clarify - or further mystify if he doesn't know either? Peridon (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I admit it had not even occurred to me to look there, after my initial check to see whether CPVIO was claiming to act in a formal capacity as copyright violation scrutineer. Assuming good faith on CPVIO's part, my guess is that this arose from the fact that right at the outset of the AfD discussion I said that the point made by user CPVIO went right to the heart of WP's use of sources. Later in the discussion I used film awards, and specifically the Oscars, as examples of lists in WP which were technically copyright, in the sense that was being argued for the list of Michelin starred restaurants, but where use was implicitly allowed and indeed encouraged. User CPVIO seems to have picked out other similar lists, apparently with the suggestion that they might be challengeable. I certainly did not refer to them myself, and if he thought that I would support him in that he was very much mistaken. Even assuming that he had no wish to mislead, it is of course a gross breach of etiquette to have acted in this way - my only communication from this user aside from the AfD discussion is a message on my talk page telling me of this case. --AJHingston (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds OK to me. Thought it was probably something like that when I couldn't find any messages. (Apologies for digging, but you know how it goes...) Peridon (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• CheckUser requested - Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention - CPVIO is barely a week old, thoroughly familiar with Wikipedia policy, and somewhat combative. It's clear he's a sock, and it seems plausible he was created to avoid a block or scruitiny. I do not believe there is evidence to run a check on AJHingston, however. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Confirmed OrenBochman (talk · contribs) = CPVIO.  Likely Setenant (talk · contribs) is related, and there are two other possible socks that I can't mention at this time since there is not enough evidence to suggest they are part of this.  Declined for AJHingston per this new evidence, and lack of evidence. Clerks/CUs, I might be reading over things a little too fast, so if there is grounds to run a check on AJ despite the CU remark, feel free to relist. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Clerk note: The Editor interaction utility shows that CPVIO and Oren have never edited the same page, and Oren was not blocked at any time that CPVIO has been editing. Honestly, I'm confused as to why the account was created at all. I'll be asking Oren for his input. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Blocking CPVIO indefiinitely and Oren 1 week for using sockpuppets to avoid scruitiny. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]