Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mantion/Archive

26 July 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Three days ago the user Mantion began an edit war on the Chick-Fil-A page. He made [| two] [| edits] blanking any sections which painted the company in a bad light. After these were reverted he switched to blanking [| one] of these [| sections] at a [| time] giving a flimsy [| reason] on the article's talk page and breaking the three revert rule in the process. Soon afterwards he was [| banned] for edit warring and attacking other editors. A few hours later a new user called Algonquin7 began making several edits like [| this one] using the same tactics (i.e. trying to paint the company in a better light), from what I can see also breaking the three revert rule. I've requested a Checkuser as I don't have any evidence other than this (apart from the two account's similar writing styles as can be seen on the two users talk page posts), but in my opinion it's definitely enough of a possibility to justify checking out. Aethersniper (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

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

This charge is false, firstly our writing are completely differant styles also I'm a horrible speller where he is not and the Chick-fil-a issue is a national contentoius issue of course it is going to bring in a lot of new editors, and I'm not even that new my first edit was on June 28 on the Wisconsin Senate Election 2012 page. I have also been utterly kind to other editors not engaging in personal attacks like Mantion. You have my permission to do a Checkuser if you want to since these charges are horsefeathers  Algonquin7 (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree that the two have very different styles of English. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

(Algonquin7 speaking) Just to fully cooperate with this pointless investigation (That I can't see why it has not closed yet) I'm grew tired with the Algonquin7 moniker and I'm John D. Rockerduck Now. Please go there for my recent activies as I'm not using Algonquin anymore salutations John D. Rockerduck (talk) 20:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Um... you should have instead requested a name change through WP:CHU/Simple. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like your right about that but since I already registered the name as a differant account before I knew about the name change option I think it's to late, though you way would have been decidely more easier my way is still in keeping with the rules about legitimate multiple accounts so I'm doing nothing wrong. That being said this investigation though seems decided against sockpuppetry so I still not sure why it is open though I should say I'm am unfamiliar with these things  John D. Rockerduck (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
The editing styles of the two users don't suggest it's the same person, and Algonquin7's account was created in June, and has several edits unrelated to the disruptive activity that led to Mantion's block. I'd say this behavior doesn't suggest sockpuppetry, and a checkuser isn't even necessary. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * - I'm not seeing the similarity here - it's very difficult to fake two completely different styles of editing, and the article has had heavy editing from a number of users. I don't think a CU is necessary - on behaviour alone it's clear that these are two very different users. Steven   Zhang  Get involved in DR! 01:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Closing based on Mr. Zhang's analysis. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 01:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)