Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amec116/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Both of these accounts majorly edit same pages like Lulu International Shopping Mall and Open defecation pages.

On Open defecation pages both of these accounts have tried to remove and add similar information. For instance Amec116 made this edit diffs which was reverted later on. After some time Alandyept made a similar edit on Open defecation page where they removed a similar section removed by Amec116 diffs and added a similar information using the same wording and same references on the open defecation page diffs. So Amec116 edits were being restored by Alandyept.

On Lulu International Shopping Mall both the accounts did the same thing. For instance Amec116 claimed Lulu was 1.5 million square feet using a reference diffs that reference was later again used by Alandyept to restore Amec166 edit on the page diffs

Other places where they are making similar edits are List of shopping malls in India where Alandyept is basically restoring information added by Amec116.

Alandyept account was also made after Amec116 account. They both have similar type of editing pattern. After Alandyept account was made, Amec166 stopped editing. So there is a lot of similarities between the two account which could suggest that they are sock puppet accounts. 37.200.142.12 (talk) 11:04, 25 October 2019 (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

 * -, one account stopped editing, the other started. What's the WP:ILLEGIT behaviour? Cabayi (talk) 11:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Cabayi beat me to the punch here. I see no overlapping of edits between the two accounts that suggest that the user went back-and-forth between the two of them in order to violate policy. Also, I'm declining CU, as the behavioral evidence submitted is more than enough for us to be able to evaluate the report fully - no CU check is necessary here.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   11:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * And the behavioural evidence is entirely consistent with a lost password. Closing. Cabayi (talk) 11:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)