Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OuendanL/Archive

25 June 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

They have very similar editing tendencies, mostly revolving around L/R romanization disputes in tokusatsu articles. Both have made the same edit on Energy Management Center, changing "Buddyroid" to "Buddyloid", and as a result the page was semi-protected. (Kitsunelaine's edit / OuendanL's edit) While being on the same side of an edit war is not enough evidence for sockpuppetry, Kitsunelaine also reverted the addition of the sockpuppeteer template to User talk:OuendanL. This seems to be an attempt to cover up the fact OuendanL is a sockpuppeteer, and Kitsunelaine would have no reason to make such an edit if they were not the same person. ONR (talk) 23:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * The Sockpuppeteer template was added by a sock, who's only two edits was to add the notice to both OuendanL and Kitsunelaine user page. Kitsunelaine removed it from both pages after the sock was blocked, which is perfectly reasonable. It's a misuse of the template which is meant for admin's and clerks only, and an edit made in violation of a ban. Removing of the notice isn't really evidence of anything. In fact other editors have done the same on my user page. — Strongjam (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Ouendanl and I were just both reverting vandalism on that page. And I reverted vandalism by a banned user accusing us of being sockpuppets . There's no reason for ONR to keep restoring the wrong template on Ouendal's page . Why are you suddenly so interested in a page you've never edited before? Also, how exactly have I "Dug my own grave"? Reverting vandalism is a good thing. I like my Toku articles clean and accurate. And, uh... Why would I need two user accounts... For an edit war? Isn't that kind of needlessly convoluted?   Kitsunelaine (talk) 04:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I happen to know for fact these are separate users, and although they are friends (or at least have mutual friends), there does not seem to be any real violation of policy via meatpuppetry. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  00:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently someone hiding behind 166.177.185.35 thinks I'm too "involved" to deal with this despite the total lack of evidence towards that. I'll leave the closing of the case up for another clerk, then? ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  01:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no evidence at all here. Closing this case.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)