Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Potguru/Archive

16 May 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Both users are SPAs almost only interested in cannabis and hemp articles. When Potgurur is facing almost universal opprobium ofr his editson cannabis, there is hempFan supporting him. This thread seems to be in the same style as Potguru, obsessive about naming cannabis articles. Here they discuss amicably, using the same writing style, and indeed to my mind they seem to be supporting each other in the way of socks here.It was not my suggestion that user is using a sock, someone else suggested it on an AN/I thread here (opened by yet another editor) and I agree with the assessment. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 14:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As a more general observation I note the following. Potguru has made more than three thousand edits in her or his four months on wikipedia, which to my mind is a lot for a new user. When I examined her or his first contribs she or he did not come across as a new editor but an already experieinced one. I have no idea which user might be a previous incarnation of Potguru but if she or he wasnt a new user in January and is perhaps hiding her or his past record here that itself would, to my mind, indicate increased likelihood of using socks and disrespecting the norms of community editing. And the same sense that this is not a new user also pervades HempFan's few edits. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I would also like to make an additional observation about HempFan's early edits. Note that his SECOND edit ever was a redirect, and his THIRD was to create a new wikitable in an article, and his ELEVENTH edit was to create a new article with its own table. This appears to be rather complex editing behaviour for a new user. Cheers, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  17:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm not Potguru and I'm just here to edit hemp articles (not so much cannabis, just hemp, although some cannabis articles may be edited as well. Me and Potguru just happen to agree on that it's ridiculous to call every cannabis topic article, "Cannabis (insert use here)". Yes, I happen to have some HTML experience and I copied the tables from other Wikipedia articles. I'm a fast learner. Besides, if were Potguru's sockpuppet, don't you think he'd choose something more inconspicuous than another cannabis user name? It's just coincidental, cannabis is very popular these days, and I love hemp. HempFan (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify by the way, I have no editing history in common with Potguru, other than both of us opposing a move of Hemp to Cannabis (industrial uses); I opposed the move first, and we were both in agreement on the talk page. That's it. Apparently this only common sense agreement between us was enough to accuse me of being his sockpuppet (I'm not even sure what that is, but okay). Other than that, he left a welcoming comment on my talk page, warning me of getting banned, User_talk:HempFan. As I've stated before and implied by my username, my main interest in cannabis is industrial hemp, not so much recreational pot or "marijuana". I don't care about that stuff. I will try to improve the hemp related articles, and I was also advised by someone else on my talk page, to diversify my interests here on Wikipedia, and I've begun doing that by editing nutrition related articles. I became interested in hemp because of its nutritional aspects, so I might as well edit some nutrition articles as well while I'm at it. And one of my first edits was hemp nutrition anyway, so that backs up what I'm saying. HempFan (talk) 09:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
 * 1) At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
 * 2) At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
 * 3) In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  21:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No evidence provided since the request, closing. Mike V • Talk 15:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)