Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Casanova88/Archive

11 October 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Gh87 (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC) I apologize for creating a non-evident request for sockpuppet investigations. To be honest, I am not sure about my own purposes for sockpuppetry accusations. They have similar motives: saving the articles and the projects of American soap operas and their entities. They reverted removal of copyrighted images for the sake of "preserving" fictional in-universes. They cut-and-pasted the material into List of All My Children miscellaneous characters, while the AFD was running: doing so is against policy, which they may not be aware. I'm too exhausted to explain more; I understand your decline to use Checkuser. Please remember that these users, similar or different, are dedicated to soap opera universes regardless of Wikipedia policies. --Gh87 (talk) 20:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Wow, so now I'm accused of being a sock puppet. While I am grateful that the discussion has been closed, it is disheartening to see that while I was attempting to improve and save the articles nominated for deletion, I was targeted due to my differing contributions of GH87 as a sock puppett. Listen, I am only here on Wikipedia to edit and contribute in an appropriate manner. Just because my contributions differ, Gh87, does not mean I'm a sock puppet. I don't know who those other account/IP users are and I must say, it seems that the investigation was personal to you because we dared to declare different approaches into improving articles than agreeing to your daily, intense deletions. Please, you are welcome to improve them but that is something you are not doing. You want them gone and forgotten about. You have options of improving or merging articles but you endlessly want all the articles - on characters and information - gone. I am knowledgable of Wikipedia so please don't accuse me of being "dedicated to soap opera universes regardless of Wikipedia policies" while you try to get articles deleted with no logical or valid reasons and personally attack other users. It's becoming a daily pursuit with you. Suffice to say, while we may differ in our views and edits on Wikipedia, I hope that we can rise above this and at least find common ground - as I hope for all users involved when differentiating themselves against your deletion nominations. Please try to understand where all of the other users, including myself, are coming from. What's that prophecy again - "treat others the way you want to be treated." I truly believe this applies in person and on Wikipedia.Casanova88 (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * (Administration note) Request was misfiled and spread across two wrongly-named pages. I have merged the requests and deleted the old subpages. AGK  [&bull; ] 20:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (Note to filing party) It is not enough to dump the names of the suspected sock-puppets and to expect us to take it from there. This applies doubly when you have requested checkuser data, for which there is a high burden of proof. Also, we do not give out checkuser data on IP addresses as a rule, although you are welcome to file an SPI-with-CU in order to have the checkusers look into it without publicly reporting the results. AGK  [&bull; ] 20:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * . No clear connection has been demonstrated, other than that the accounts are editing the same article. Even then, their edits are markedly different, and there is no obvious overlap. AGK  [&bull; ] 20:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * After reviewing the edits, they are markedly different, per AGK. I don't think there is really nearly enough to go off to even block this individual user. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 03:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)