Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Apeholder/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
IP suddenly appears from nowhere and votes "KEEP" on the only two nominations which Apeholder is trying to keep? I find that coincidence too strange to accept. This is either a sock or at the very least a meat. Note that they use the same reasoning to keep as well. Muhandes (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2023 (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

 * I warned the user . Closing. MarioGom (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
I admit this is perhaps a bit thin, but there was enough to raise my suspicion that I don't think it should be ignored. Two recent AfDs, Articles for deletion/Know Our B-Sides (2nd nomination) and Articles for deletion/Nobody Loved You (2nd nomination), both on articles created by Apeholder (see "Note to closing admin" on both pages), had both responses from Apeholder and the same IP address listed above. All four responses voted to keep, but specifically the same all-caps "KEEP" as each other. The IP editor has made no other edits and appears to have no other history. This could be a complete coincidence, but it's at least more than nothing. Another user left a warning regarding potential sockpuppetry on Apeholder's talk page, to which they responded:"I am in a large building with a shared WAN connection, so your vicious accusation is entirely unfounded because my IP is used by many. Any further contact from yourself will be considered harassment and the relevant authorities will be contacted"

I don't exactly know what to make of that since the idea that someone else in their apartment building coincidentally being an editor with the same interests and capitalization habits feels a bit farfetched, and threats of legal action are, I suppose, threatening, but usually when I see someone playing this level of defensiveness it's an attempt to ward off accusations of something they are very likely to be guilty of. Again, this is still possibly all a coincidence, I'm not assuming anything, but you can see why I had reason to be suspicious. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 10:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * In Apeholder's editing history, they've only participated in two other AfDs, Articles for deletion/Alan Standorf and Articles for deletion/Francesca Fiorentini, neither of which involved any IP editors. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 10:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I should also note that I didn't see the archived previous investigation request until now, which was closed by MarioGom after they issued the warning I mentioned above. If it's inappropriate to reopen this when the only additional information is Apeholder's response to that warning, then that's my mistake for not checking first and I apologize (though I still think the nature of the response is worth considering). QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 10:23, 23 August 2023 (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

 * Nothing new since the archive. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 13:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)