Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HollyZuelle/Archive

06 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Both accounts are new. Both created the article Holly Zuelle within a few days of each other. The account Maddymonty created the second one and the account HollyZuelle has edited it. JetBlast (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''


 * They did edit the same article. The first account made the new article, then is got speedy deleted. The day after a new account was made and made the same article again, with the exact same test. Odd do you not think? Accounts have been banned on the same grounds in the past. --JetBlast (talk) 11:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You still have not given any evidence of abuse of multiple accounts. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well there wont be until you check...... What evidence do you require? Most of the cases are based on suspicion then admins look into it..... --JetBlast (talk) 11:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Why is this case any different? --JetBlast (talk) 11:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The text of the recreated article was different from the deleted one. So, you want me to run a check, which accesses sensitive information from the server logs subject to the privacy policy, simply because two accounts have an interest in the same person, when there is otherwise zero evidence that these two accounts are operated by the same person? Simply ridiculous. Do not tell me how "most cases" are handled, because not only am I well aware of this, but also it is me that is responsible for any consequences arising from my usage of the checkuser tool and therefore may reject cases as I see fit. Any administrator is still free to handle your case, but until you provide evidence that a check is necessary then your request for checkuser will remain rejected. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Its not the same anymore because its been edited... Anyway there is no need to be rude. --JetBlast (talk) 12:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not the same anymore, but it was also never the same in the first place, as I quite clearly stated above. I am collapsing this discussion as it is pointless to continue it. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 12:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I'm assuming here that the second template (with no user name given) was a typo. Please feel free to add the correct data back in if you really were trying to cite a second sock (third editor in all). — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry i am unsure what you mean? Bother usernames are on this page. Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 23:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There was an additional line in your original request, which caused a line of garbage to appear underneath "Maddymonty". See [ the original version] of this page.  I deleted the offending stuff from the original request (see [ here]).  If you were reporting only HollyZuelle and Maddymonty, then everything is OK now.  Sorry if I confused you.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 23:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh i see, no i was only reporting the ones on here. It must be a glitch with Twinkle, thats what i used to report it. Thats why i am confused i didn't know it happened :-). Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 23:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * - —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * . The evidence presented by the case filer was that two accounts edited the same new article. Aside from the fact that there are plenty of logical explanations for that, no evidence of abuse of multiple accounts was given. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing per Deskana, and also because the filer doesn't seem interested in providing more evidence. Rschen7754 09:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)