Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mabelina/Archive

14 May 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

User:L'honorable has exactly the same interests as the indefblocked User:Mabelina, and the same issues with an inability to collaborate or admit errors. A perfect overlap in editing patterns, including very unusual quirks such as mini-spikes in edits at particular times of day, and steep drops in editing on Mondays. I believe Mabelina is too old to CU, but the quacking is obvious. &#8209; Iridescent 18:43, 14 May 2016 (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

 * Note this comment is relevant: . HighInBC 18:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. &#8209; Iridescent 19:30, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Never a dull moment here. HighInBC 19:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * - In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
 * 1) At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
 * 2) At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
 * 3) In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  13:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've blocked L'honorable on behavioral evidence, some of which I shared via email with ; I have no desire to advertise the idiosyncrasies in the person's style, but they are a solid match between the two accounts. Thanks especially to for getting the ball rolling. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Tagging and closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  17:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

These are by no means the only examples. It is beyond doubt in my mind that these two editors are absolutely identical. By continuing to pretend that the Mabelina account was operated by someone else, L'honorable is attempting to evade scrutiny and is misusing a clean start. DrKay (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Identical edit summaries: e.g.
 * Identical interests: e.g.
 * Identical talk page style: e.gThanking you in advance for your co-operationThanking you in advance for your co-operation

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Observation This SPI is in fact a repeat of Sockpuppet investigations/Mabelina/Archive. Unless some miracles, you will find no new facts. The Banner talk 18:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * this does indeed appear to be a repeat of the case in the archive. The previous case resulted in a finding of sockpuppetry which was subsequently appealed and overturned, owing to l'honorable's explanation that the "master" account had been shared in the past. As Mabelina remains blocked and I can see no evidence of new account sharing, there is no violation here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * His explanation is false. Where do I get the finding that the account was shared in the past overturned? DrKay (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's irrelevant. If the previous account was only operated by the same user behind the l'honorable account, he was blocked (as Mabelina) due to specific behaviours and was unblocked (as l'honorable) after a standard offer community discussion. If the previous account was shared between two people (as l'honorable has explained and I see no reason not to accept that explanation) then l'honorable has agreed to only use one account, and there is no evidence that he has broken that agreement. Either way, there is no current abuse of the multiple accounts policy. If you want to try a third venue to get this user blocked you should try ANI, though as a neutral observer you seem to have become emotionally attached to this dispute. If you would like to try to summarize at Talk:Albert, Prince Consort (which nobody involved has tried to do yet) then that will be a good first step. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't speak down to me. It hasn't escaped notice that you supported the unblock request and so are not a neutral observer. DrKay (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

This should probably be closed with a re-affirmation that "l'honorable" is and always was the same user as Mabelina, that they lied about this in the context of their unblock requests earlier this year (giving only the half-baked "my little brother did it" story of the allegedly shared account, which was never credible to begin with), and that therefore the unblock in January never had a valid basis. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)