Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marianne1982/Archive

09 May 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Marianne1982 only edits have been to remove this content from the Ghulam Azam article. The editor was blocked for persistent edit warring and has not returned. I believe the editor has created this sock to avoid scrutiny over the previous edit warring, the suspect socks first edit is in moving the exact same content from the lede which Marianne1982 had attempted to remove, in moving the content the suspect sock also managed to "lose" a few quotes. I will also point out that this exact same edit has been done by User:Applesandapples And while A&a was not connected to Marianne1982 in a previous SPI I have to assume meatpuppetry is going on here, I do not find it credible that three editors (two new) would have the exact same interest in removing or reducing this content. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

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


 * I don't think there is anything to defend on my part. I am an established editor who has edited the article in question on and off for ages and will continue to do so. I am not ignorant enough to think that sockpuppets ever work. This is the third SPI DS has thrown my name into, and will be the third failure in this respect. I am a bit sick of CUs being called against me and I would comment that there is not any reasonable excuse to CU me again. I've already been checked against Marianne1982 anyhow. Verified unrelated, of course. Applesandapples (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have not accused you of sockpuppetry, I believe this is meatpuppetry. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Mostly applies to that too. Applesandapples (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Elderowan third edit is practically word for word compared to your additon to the ICT controversy article. An article all of four people have edited, myself being one of them. An article in which only two editors insist on using the term "scandal" over controversy, you being one of them. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you mean me and Crtew, then I suppose that would make Elderowan the third. Three out of a very small pool of people who have edited this article. Your incessant twisting of facts is very tiresome. And I have reverted Elderowan for putting the "practically word for word edit" in a different article, because it is not needed in the article. Applesandapples (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have twisted no facts at all, RE your revert of Elderowan. The editor restored the content they had been adding after your revert, then self reverted. I notice their talk page is still a redlink, I wonder how many editors, let alone new ones check the edit history of an article after they have edited? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Marianne1982 and Elderowan are ❌, technically speaking. WilliamH (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * To elaborate, both have never edited at the same time. So while they are indeed technically unrelated, an actual comparison of their technical data isn't possible. Therefore the data should be considered . WilliamH (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Closing, no convincing evidence of sockpuppetry. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)