Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kerri9494/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
blanking the Rachel Chaikoff page After the IP was threatened with a block, Kerri9494 suddently swooped in and requested a speedy Kerri9494 uses a lot of the same language that nobody else uses in deletion nominations (ie, claiming that the info in the article garnered from independent published sources is "personal information. But most telling of all, they swooped in to remove dead links to cochlearimplantonline immediately after the site was no longer listed on webarchive, indicating a private knowledge of the site being delisted in the webarchive, ie, from being the person who edits that site) The fact that Kerri9494 claims that the Wikipedia article using information only from already published sources and describes the actions of the IP as "good faith blanking" (literally not a thing!) demonstrates the high degree of similarity between the two accounts.-- RespectCE (talk) 11:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Mine is not a sock puppet account, and I believe this editor is making a bad-faith claim, in retaliation for my calling into question the appropriateness of their sources, and later marking a page for deletion (the Rachel Chaikof page). On the deletion discussion page, they've already claimed to be maintaining and expanding the subject's page as retribution against the subject of the page, which makes me wonder if this report is meant to be retribution as well.

They've also publicly accused me of sockpuppetry both on the article talk page and the deletion page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerri9494 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are TRULY not a sockpuppet, you are the most unlucky editor ever given the timing and phraseology of your contributions and should therefore be capable of recognizing that it doesn't exactly look good. This is not "retaliating" this is "holy crap these edit patterns are awfully similar". And yes, I am not happy about it when IP editors unilaterally blank a page I worked hard on. That page would have inevitably been expanded in the future anyway, but the huge editwar that popped up on my watchlist called my attention back to it from some of my other side projects. If you are truly not a sock I'm sure you'd want to have your case handled by an uninvolved party. But I think you are aware of the vast similarity in edits and just don't want a neutral party to find a COI problem on your end.--RespectCE (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Declined. I do not think there's enough similarity between the editors to justify a block for sockpuppetry. I also do not see the coordination needed for a meatpuppetry block. Finally, I note that Kerri9494 has a history of interest in the D/deaf topic area, so it is not implausible that they would be interested in this article. Closed without action. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)