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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

This edit is what initially flagged the issue: Talk:Cox Automotive. This was in response to my removal of a list of (what I considered) promo material from an article created by TechnoTalk, who I'd previously read the talk page interactions of. In response to this, Timtempleton claims to have drafted this article - which he has seemingly never edited.

I googled Tim and found his twitter under the same name and found tweets directly pertaining to Wikipedia articles which he has edited in a promotional manner (though I believe I cannot include these links per the outing guidelines?). In addition, Tim offers 'Social Media Marketing' services via his own business website, and has published other off-Wikipedia (but Wikipedia-related) articles etc. (Note also that the company list shown on said business website includes these companies: Covad, MCI & SafeNet.)

In relation to Wikipedia itself, they both have an editing history containing promotional edits to disparate companies and company executives, with some crossover on articles such as:

• Academy of Achievement: Techno1, Tim1
• Cox Enterprises: Techno2, Tim2 (although note this is the parent company to the above Cox Automative)
• Gravity Payments: Techno3, Tim3
• Payoff Inc: Techno4, Tim4

Not sure if this is the right place for this issue, please let me know if I should create a WP:COI/N entry also. Would also like to know if links to twitter and other articles are OK to include here. Nikthestunned 16:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional: Split suggestion by Techno, followed by a response by Tim, answering as though the original question was their own. Nikthestunned 10:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk - to compare the two. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Both accounts are  Unrelated. It seems possible that they just have similar areas of interest. Mike V • Talk 02:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Kgeguchadze (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 2A01:E0A:2C9:A5E0:74A0:FDAF:92DA:F0F5 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 68.5.3.227 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

On 2 November 2022, Timtempleton and TechnoTalk were CU-blocked indefinitely [1], [2] by Blablubbs. Since then, Right Great Wrongs was CU-blocked as a Timtempleton sock by GeneralNotability on 11 January 2023 [3].

Before Right Great Wrongs was blocked, their editing history includes de-prodding several articles created by Timtempleton that were prodded by Scope creep, [4], [5], including Maven Clinic [6], which is currently at AfD, nominated by Scope creep.

On the user Talk page of Right Great Wrongs, this user makes a comment to Scope creep that includes You’re much quicker than I am with the stuff, since I look for other sources that aren’t in the article [7], which seems similar to part of a comment made by new account Kgeguchadze in the Maven Clinic AfD I also want to highlight additional sources that the editor may not have had time to look for before deciding to nominate this article [8], as well as Timtempleton previously, e.g. [9]. New user Kgeguchadze also says I've seen in other deletion discussions that three sources are required to meet Wikipedia's notability standards, which is similar to a TechnoTalk comment about the popular "three best sources" source review in a previous AfD [10].

The IP makes a comment in the Maven Clinic AfD [11] that seems similar to a previous Timtempleton AfD argument related to 'unicorns', e.g. [12]. CU is requested because there may be disruption at AfD related to articles created by Timtempleton. Beccaynr (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added an IP who recently added a long comment to the Maven Clinic AfD [13] with a large focus on Scope creep, including serious conduct allegations/insinuations and a PA (and a smaller comment about me), which is similar to past Timtempleton conduct, e.g. on the Timtempleton user Talk page [14] (some was redacted from that discussion by Timtempleton after my request). The IP also uses the term "gaslighting", which is a term Timtempleton used in the 2nd Contentsquare AfD [15]. Beccaynr (talk) 05:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

It does seem quite similar to TimTempleton's language when he started to get stroppy in an argument, it is that kind of language. It actually strikes me as quite odd that it is so similar. scope_creep^Talk 12:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• In the context of past AfDs where Timtempleton has participated with !votes asserting a minority view on notability and the independence and depth of sources per WP:NCORP, (e.g. Contentsquare (2nd nomination), Fivetran (2nd nomination), AlphaSense, ActiveFence, Cambrian Biopharma), there appears to be excessive support for similar views about the obscure article currently being discussed at the Maven Clinic AfD, along with an appearance of precocious familiarity with Wikipedia and similarly uncivil comments. Beccaynr (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• We're not working with great data here. I'd say Kgeguchadze is  Possible.  No comment with respect to IP address(es). --Blablubbs (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• It's certainly suspicious, but the AfD is closed now and these users' votes do not seem to have affected the outcome. Feel free to re-file if more evidence comes to light. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redrosally (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Threevian (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• CarsonHolland (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 · SPI Tools

Timtempleton appears to have a distinct style of writing for articles about obscure, non-notable companies that include promotional announcements and low-quality sources, e.g. in their list of articles created, this includes Contentsquare, Fivetran, and Cambrian Biopharma.

During AfD discussions, Timptempleton has also taken what appears to be a minority view about the use of dependent coverage based on press releases, e.g. [16] (includes Is it possible you just read the title and jumped to conclusions?), [17] (includes There's absolutely no precedent or consensus for saying that if a press release spurs coverage, and the media does additional reporting, including interviews, that somehow disqualifies the resultant article in a notability discussion., [18] (includes an objection to comparing press releases to news coverage).

Brightline (company), created [19] by Redrosally with later contributions from Threevian, appears to emulate the Timtempleton style of article writing and sourcing for obscure companies that appear to lack support for notability per WP:NCORP. After Threevian de-prodded the article [20], Threevian participated at the pending Brightline AfD with arguments that appear to emulate past Timtempleton arguments, e.g. [21] (includes The subjects of the articles may give the impression that they are just announcements but if you read the full article you will see... and Don't just come up with your own policy as to what is a press release. If it does not say it is a press release then it's not. If you know of specific Wikipedia Guideline that says articles written based on a press release are not acceptable, then please share it here.)

Threevian has also participated at the pending The Revels Group AfD, an article created and recreated by CarsonHolland [22] soon after it was speedily deleted [23] per WP:G11 by Deepfriedokra. Threevian has !voted keep in the AfD that follows [24] and added content to the article that appears to be trivial and promotional coverage insufficient to support notability per the WP:NCORP guideline [25].

The creation of previously deleted content and defense of the recreated version at AfD seems similar to Timtempleton/TechnoTalk with ContentSquare (AfD 1, AfD 2). Timtempleton also previously created Playground Sessions, which I recall was similarly music-focused, poorly-sourced and promotional (See AfD). The brief edit history of CarsonHolland includes ten edits on 29 November 2021 before inactivity until one edit on 7 April 2022, and then inactivity until the creation of The Revels Group on 18 January 2023. While CarsonHolland seems like a less-experienced user, so did TechnoTalk, e.g. Contentsquare AfD 1.

CU requested to confirm and/or check for sleepers. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC) Beccaynr (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Redrosally recently recreated Nicole Simone after deletion at AfD in December 2021, with many low-quality and promotional sources. The current AfD and sources identified in that discussion seems reminiscent of the TechnoTalk-created loanDepot article (previously discussed at the COIN noticeboard), which was also developed with only favorable coverage of the subject [26] despite the availability of other sources [27]. Beccaynr (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I discovered this investigation, while trying to figure out what happened with the Brightline (Company) page that I created , which I had not noticed was nominated in AFD and did not even vote on it. The only thing of course that has linked me to these other editors is because Threevian did some edits on Brightline after I created it. I assure you that I am unrelated to any of these other editors. Your argument that my sources are weak for Nicole Simone page, which are similar to sources being weak for a page TechnoTalk created is a very weak argument. I can share with you hundreds of pages that have been created that may have similar sources, does that mean hundreds of other editors are socks of these people too? These guys might be related to each other, but I assure you that I am an independent editor and all my edits are 100% non-paid. Redrosally (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  In the Houseplant (company) article, one of your edit summaries states "no need to say "according to press release"" [28], which appears to emulate the Timtempleton/TechnoTalk minority view noted above on the use of PR in articles (see also the COIN noticeboard discussion noted above), and the Nicole Simone article is a recreated article that is also poorly-sourced and promotional, so there appear to be similarities in the approach to editing. Beccaynr (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Beccaynr I would suggest looking at user:MrsSnoozyTurtle. Could be Meatpuppetry. 109.181.162.35 (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  MrsSnoozyTurtle was the nominator of Brightline (company) at AfD, which does not seem to be a sign of meatpuppetry with, e.g. accounts that create/recreate/defend promotional articles with low-quality and promotional sources and minority views on notability, etc. Beccaynr (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Beccaynr with all due respect, you are just throwing all you got at me and hoping something would stick. None of what you said is a good argument. How is it me posting that it is not necessary to say "according to press release" the same as saying a press release can be used??? In addition, there was not a press release used as a citation in that article or else I would have removed it.

  It appears that you are not even an admin, so maybe you should leave SPI's to the admins. As the CU evidence proves, I am unrelated to all these others. Your actions here equal bullying Wikipedia:Bully, just because you have 21k edits that does not give you the right to harass newer editors and try to make your own view point across. I am sure you are familiar with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Redrosally (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to point out to the admins @Beccaynr has gone through great lengths to discredit the Nicole Simone article I created in AFD. again she is trowing everything she got and discrediting every single citation just to get her POV across. Redrosally (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  In progress - -- RoySmith (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
•  On hold - From the current CU data, I'd say CarsonHolland is  Likely to Kgeguchadze (from 21 January 2023). But neither of them looks to me like they're related to Timtempleton, and Redrosally looks to be  Unrelated. I'm running down something with another CU off-wiki, so I'll place this on hold for now. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• My apologies for letting this drop off my radar. Moving back to checked. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
•  On hold - Kgeguchadze claims to work for Maven Clinic [29]. CarsonHolland claims to work for The Revels Group [30]. This does not add up. CU pointing to both account being likely to each other looks like they are either socks, or working for an intermediary UPE company they are not disclosing, which goes against the ToU. I'll ask in their talk pages and will put this case on hold. MarioGom (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I have split the two likely socks to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CarsonHolland.  Closing without action for the remaining accounts. MarioGom (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]