Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spikequeen/Archive

04 September 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Creating multiple usernames to argue case for the page Amanda Eliasch against speedy deletion when multiple genuine users have already made the case and deleted this page over five times in the past. All usernames send similar messages (eg same spelling mistakes) and make the same irrelevant argument cases. These sockpuppets frequently engage in editing wars - please see edit history for page Amanda Eliasch.Aromavic (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC) Aromavic (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' For a user whose only edits have involved various attempts to delete the article in question, it didn't take Aromavic long to figure out how to open up an SPI. Powers T 19:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * For the defense First I speak only for myself and cannot comment on any of the other parties named here. That said the accusations against me are risible and appear to have been made, at least in my case, in bad faith. Even a casual examination of the editing history of the accuser will show beyond doubt that s/he is a SPA with some sort of vendetta against the subject of Amanda Eliasch. Aromavic has engaged in a relentless campaign of disruptive editing and ignoring consensus. I respectfully request an examination of the editing history of the aforementioned article, its talk page, the recent AfD started by Aromavic and the highly suspicious track record of the now blocked user:PotassiBot as also their respective talk pages. I believe my own editing history speaks for itself but it is certainly an open book for anyone who wishes to have a look. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment, seems to be a vindictive SPI and a case of 'pot-kettle-black'. Aromavic registered on Wikipedia with the sole intention of deleting the Amanda Eliasch article by any means, including multiple attempts to speedy delete it and a failed AfD. Their activity indicates they have good knowledge of Wikipedia processes and possible prior involvement in the concerted (and successful) attempts to delete another version of the article several weeks ago. Ad Orientam clearly isn't a sock and appears to be as bewildered as me by the continual attacks on this article. I've also had no problems with the other editors listed, during my attempts to resurrect and improve the article (on a clearly notable subject). Note two of the names suggest a connection, but are simply an instance of Verydinky piping a different name to their signature. Sionk (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am happy to be checked out and you will find I am a happy enthusiast. I did not know where to start in Wikipedia, I wanted to learn. I found the page Amanda Eliasch and started. It needed help and it was good to learn on. It had so much that I could add from reputable sources. I am now starting to help other pages as you will see. On this page there seems to be a problem with past stories, badly written pages, now it is with serious editors. It looks much better. I also feel that there seems to be a lot of controversy with the subject which makes it interesting for me to work on, and for people to read. Fashion and Art are asking for help on Wikipedia and i am willing to give it. It seems that anybody who is an enthusiast is accused of being a sockpuppet. Shame that happens, you need a wide rang of subjects on Wikipedia to keep it up to date?  Also the others accused of sockpuppetry stopped Aramovic last week of vandalising the page, the one against him was Ad Orinetem Why are there wars on a site like this? Why not make things better and help create beauty rather than filling every writing second with accusations?. Spikequeen (talk) 03:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Sockpuppet investigations/Sedamjedan might be related. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've checked Spikequeen as there are a number of similarities to the SPI linked above but that looks ❌. I need the following for anything further:

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There hasn't been enough evidence submitted which convinces me of a link between these accounts. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)