Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SudoGhost/Archive

26 April 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

As soon as, I reverted some edits done by Baboon43, suddenly, SudoGhost joins the conversation to support Baboon43. The mastery of quoting various Wikipedia guidelines and policies to advocate one's edits as well as the behavior (i.e. accusing others for sock-puppetry or accusing others for WP:OWN behavior while keep on insisting on the validity of his/her own edits using various Wikipedia guidelines and policies) seems to be very much akin to Darkness_Shines, the very same editor who re-wrote the Ahbash page arbitrarly without seeking any consensus or having any discussion with the other editors who have been on that page for years. AmandaParker (talk) 09:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Please note that this appears to have been made in retaliation for Sockpuppet investigations/AmandaParker. I joined the discussion after AmandaParker reverted Baboon43 because I noticed from my watchlist that this was marked as a minor edit (which stood out on my watchlist because at -1,101 bytes of difference was unlikely to be a minor edit), so I left a message on the editors talk page, and then looked into the dispute to see if I could give an outside view. I had originally placed the article on my watchlist as a result of this ANI thread, where I'll note that another editor suspected sockpuppetry from AmandaParker. - SudoGhost 10:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

AmandaParker, could you please provide diffs that show similarity of behaviour between the two editors? In addition, looking at the talk page of both editors, I see no real link between editing behaviour/areas of interest. Osarius     Talk 12:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * As far as I know SudoGhost, he's highly critical of editing behaviour, and gives sound reasons for his criticisms. Personally I find it highly unlikely that he would use a sockpuppet. There are better ways to destroy your credibility. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed, which is why I'm asking for diffs that haven't been produced, and never will be produced a) because they probably don't exist, and b) because AmandaParker is now blocked for sockpuppetry. Osarius     Talk 19:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Obvious WP:BOOMERANG by the filer of this case.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Comment - I seriously, seriously, doubt these are the same user, and I agree this report is in retaliation for one filed against the filing user. Crystal 128 babelfish.svg Checkuser is not for fishing. That said, there are a lot of the same pages edited, so I don't know how the CU wants to handle this. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see same pages but not same edits. And CU may not be of any help - I accidentally picked DS up while checking someone else a while back - he edits on a very busy Vodaphone mobile range that seems to have few IPs and lots of Wikipedia editors. I really want to see much more behavioural evidence. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI, AmandaParker has been blocked per Sockpuppet investigations/AmandaParker. I suggest this be closed as frivolous. --regentspark (comment) 16:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with and have closed the SPI as frivolous.  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 23:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)