Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Peanutcaramel/Archive

13 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Both "new" accounts, both removing the same content from Ghulam Azam. suspected master suspected sock Darkness Shines (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Added another based on the use of "false" in this as was used in  this edit summary by Marianne1982 Darkness Shines (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Check these accounts against based on the grammar used here Darkness Shines (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

This is getting suspicious, perhaps a joe job on Applesandapples. A&a hit 3rr the first time this sock appeared, he has again hit 3RR on the same content and again the sock reappears. I am now requesting CU for this case. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Based on the CU findings I now have to assume that user:Applesandapples is either using Marianne1982 as a sock from somewhere local to him, note his logout time after reaching 3RR on the article in question 08:36, 21 April 2013 Marianne1982 logs in at 08:50, 21 April 2013 then disappears by 9:55 A&a returns for one edit at 11:36 So either A&a is the master or Marianne1982 is a meatpuppet and should be treated accordingly. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I half-expected DS to accuse me of sockpuppetry here. I have been editing frequently on Ghulam Azam for ages, so it is not really a coincidence that both of Marianne1982's two spurts of editing come on days that I have been editing it. I would like to point out that DS has a record of frivolous sockpuppetry claims - including my first encounter with him, when he called me an obvious sock and called an SPI on me...which of course, failed. In addition, I am not new to Wikipedia, and I feel a bit insulted that DS thinks I would be stupid enough to create a sock account and immediately start editing on the same article.
 * The account also, as opposed to how the contributions look, has created articles on hospitals that have nothing to do with me and have been speedily deleted . Not a pattern which implies sockpuppetry on my part.
 * Also, although this will only be recognised by those who know me better, but Marianne1982's writing style differs from mine. I never leave edit summaries that sound like "what tripe, almost laughable".
 * In the end, the proof is in the CheckUser log, and I am happy to leave defending me to the CU. Applesandapples (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Lol, you think it "not really a coincidence" that on two days you reach 3RR edit warring out content on that article a "new editor" suddenly arrives with the exact same POV? It is either your sock or meatpuppet. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, you leave edit summaries such as removed unreferenced potentially libellous sentences & removed potentially libellous information while Marianne1982 uses slander. Not much of a difference there really. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not close enough for anyone to use it as evidence of puppetry by a very long way. Applesandapples (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Depends really, if you geolocate closely to Marianne1982 then it is more than plausible it is a sock of you, and if not then it is likely a meatpuppet based on the timing of the edits alone. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Also this is the second time that Marianne1982 has turned up after you hit 3RR. On 12 April 2013‎ you were edit warring this same content from the article, as soon as you hit 3RR the Marianne1982 account was created to carry on that edit war. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * When Marianne1982 edited I was not on 3RR, as I had only made one edit within the previous 24 hours. So this is not the second time, this is the first and only time. It might not be a coincidence - Marianne1982 might be watching my edits or something - but there is no evidence to accuse an established editor of puppetry. Just like there wasn't last time. Applesandapples (talk) 02:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyone can look and see, but here 12 April 2013 1 2 3 Then Marianne1982 turns up to continue the edit war. So, yes this is twice this has happened. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, you are not an established user, you are a SPA. Bar one edit all your edits revolve around the ICT and those being prosecuted. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:19, 22 April 2013 (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

 * - basically per the diffs mentioned in the first 2 lines of the request. Rschen7754 11:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * From a CU standpoint, they appear to be ❌. Please note that is not a registered account. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry typo, it was Aminul802 Might I ask if Marianne1982 is using a proxy? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No open proxies were apparent. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Close per negative CU and otherwise insufficient behavioral evidence especially given possibility of joe job. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 07:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)