Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Maned Owl Events/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Maned Owl Events was the creator of Chicago Food Truck Festival and primary editor of this page. User was blocked. I flagged the page for deletion and Thelegaldude is making edits similar to tone as creator. He asked a question on the Teahouse asking how to stop a page (the Chicago Food Truck Festival) from getting deleted) implying he is the creator. Thelegaldude is also the primary content editor of this page after the original creator account was blocked. A singular user has made dozens of revisions to the page after the article was nominated for deletion. .   I believe this is sufficient evidence that he is a sock puppet.

Now, the user could have just created a second account because his other account was blocked, but there is a protocol to follow when an account is blocked. A clean start is permitted only if there are no active bans, blocks, or sanctions in place against the old account. User:Thelegaldude is not stating the affilliation. Banchasana (talk) 05:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Other behaviorial evidence to review:
 * Both users are WP:XS of Chicago Food Trucks. In fact, they are the only editors on Wikipedia developing content for the Chicago Food Truck Festival, but not at the same time.
 * Both users are WP:IDENTICAL --Banchasana (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As stated before, Thelegaldude posted on the Teahouse asking how he could get a Speedy Deletion for Chicago Food Truck Festival removed. I accidentally submitted a Speedy Delete request instead of the AfD which I was supposed to do. This request was sent to the banned account Maned Owl Events. Why did Thelegaldude ask how to get it removed unless he was a sock puppet? Seems very coincidental, given the lack of activity on the page by anyone.   --Banchasana (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Requesting checkuser because suspected sockpuppet User:Thelegaldude is voting in an active deletion case for the Chicago Food Truck Festival and voting "strong keep" as a suspected sockpuppet. This is disruptive to the editing process. []--Banchasana (talk) 13:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Requesting checkuser because suspected sockpuppet User:Thelegaldude is voting in an active deletion case for the Chicago Food Truck Festival and voting "strong keep" as a suspected sockpuppet. This is disruptive to the editing process. []--Banchasana (talk) 13:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Sockpuppet inquiry pages are only about account and IP misuse—nothing else. There is no evidence of either. Asking a question is not sufficient evidence. Please remember the rules: Remember to assume good faith, Remember to stick to verifiable evidence (usually diffs), and reasonable deductions and impressions drawn from evidence. --Thelegaldude (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * This is not a personal attack, but an attempt to keep Wikipedia a space free of sock puppets, which fundamentally undermines the credibility of Wikipedia and puts its very nature at risk. I'm sorry you see this as a personal attack, but this is nothing personal. --Banchasana (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Bbb23Please remember the rules: Remember to assume good faith, Remember to stick to verifiable evidence (usually diffs), and reasonable deductions and impressions drawn from evidence not your personal opinion. I am apart of a facebook group. My family enjoys this event and I saw what the other group members were intentionally seeking to destroy this organization. They purposefully attacked this organization and one member in the group made a post stating,"I flagged their Wikipedia page for speedy deletion (seriosuly? they had a wikipedia page." I will post momentarily as soon as I figure out how. Please note the contradiction above. The user stated they accidentally deleted the page. This is not true. This was intentional. --Thelegaldude (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Again, I'm sorry you are taking this sock puppet investigation personally, but this has only to do with the basics creating multiple accounts for the intention to deceive. This has to do with the fact that it's unethical to start a new account when you have a blocked account without going through the process Wikipedia has created.  That's basically it. Please don't start weaving in extra baggage that has nothing to do with this request. Wikipedia's core credibility relies on eliminating sock puppetry.  --Banchasana (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * No it is not coincidental I am here. I am apart of a facebook group and I witnessed using them use under hand tactics to delete this page, among other things. So I came to learn how to contest a deletion. As it was not based on merit. Not one time did the group discuss notability, spam, reliability, sources or any of the rules. I am not well versed in all the intricacies of Wikipedia policies and rules but I can read well and speak up... and it does not take a sockpuppet to do that. One user in the group stated after brandishing public information of the company for the entire group, "I just flagged their wikipedia page for speedy deletion (seriously? they had a wikipedia page). So labeling me a socket puppet to deter me will not work. As the article will be saved or deleted on the merits alone. And I have made sure of that. --Thelegaldude (talk) 13:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * If you have not abused multiple accounts or IPs and have not breached the policy on meat-puppetry, then that will almost always be the finding. Sockpuppet inquiry pages are only about account and IP misuse—nothing else. If the evidence is not there, then the case will be closed without any adverse finding of any kind.

1. Making edits similar in tone. The tone of the article is in fact neutral. So, does every article written in neutral is investigated for sock puppetry? No. 2. Yes, I asked on Teahouse how do I stop a deletion because I do not know how. As I do not agree with colluding to destroy this organization when it is not based on the merits laid out by policy: notable, reliable, sources. Let the debate take its natural course. 3. Single editor. This is not true there have been three other editors. Are they sock puppets as well? 4. WP:XS because I have actual proof with names of people specifically stating, "I just flagged their wikipedia page for speedy deletion (seriosuly? they had a wikipedia page)." This is not the place to destroy a notable rally, in my city, due to personal vendattas and sabotage. I have been trained to fight for a living and I wont stand by and watch. You do not decide the knowledge future generations will have. We all do. 5.WP:IDENTICAL. Two different people who have an interest or experience in a certain field may work on many identical articles. This event occurs in my city and it's huge. And I saw you all trying to sabotage a legitimate article to attack the event.

The accusation on this page is "bad faith" because I uncovered an exposed their facebook private group schemes. This claim is not relevant to sock puppetry. Claims and issues that are not relevant to account and IP abuse will almost always be ignored by the clerks and checkusers, and will often be removed. --Thelegaldude (talk) 24:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
There is no one to compare Thelegaldude against. CU declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * and, you both need to stop. Bickering on this page is NOT what it is for. If you have a grievance about the article currently being discussed at AFD, do so on the talk page. If someone wants more information from either of you, you will be pinged. Until then, let someone uninvolved take a look. Primefac (talk) 00:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue seems moot now that the AfD is closed. Case closed with no action. Sro23 (talk) 00:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)