Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Petera93/Archive

Report date April 16 2009, 19:14 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

This is either one of those "co-incidents" that come along once in a while, or these two are sockpuppets. Of course the first co-incidence is that both usernames end in "93".
 * Evidence submitted by D.M.N. (talk)
 * 1) A few weeks ago (cicrca. March 20th to be exact) Petera93 added colours to several motorsport related tables, see  but these were reverted.
 * 2) Petera93 started a discussion, as you'd expect at WT:F1 here. The idea was rejected...
 * 3) Nothing appeared of it, until Danny 93 this and this edit, i.e. very similar to the edits Petera93 made.
 * 4) Both of their userpages show they are a fan of Liverpool football club and both are members of WP:WRC and WP:F1 and both edit similar types of pages.

Not sure if it is just a co-incidence, but this appears to be more than a co-incidence.


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I can honestly say I know nothing about Danny 93, or the edits he has made, and have never come across him in my 2 months as a Wikipedia user, even if there are some very strange similarities between us. I can only think that he has seen where I put the colours on the 2009 WRC page and decided to add them to other articles, as I did last month. I do totally understand why you've accused me, due to the cicumstances you mentioned, but this is, as far as I know, one of those co-incidents. Petera93 (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users

Requested by D.M.N. (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Request is probably premature. It is a strange coincidence (colors added are the same, except some are in hex in the second edit, which is strange -- unless there is some significance to the color choice?), but the single edit isn't evidence of a violation of WP:SOCK -- which is necessary for a CU check. Avruch  T 22:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

the evidence is very meagre indeed, and with so little evidence it would be better to assume good faith. Mayalld (talk) 06:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 06:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions