Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Enterths300000

Enterths300000

Enterths300000 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

19 July 2014

– A checkuser has completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.

Suspected sockpuppets

Sourcepen (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
Editor interaction utility

Both editors have taken issue with TheRedPenOfDoom Both accounts created two days apart, and both account editing the Himmatwala (2013 film) article. Diffs available on request, but this seems an obvious duck case to me. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I am not sourcepan, but stil I will get blocked.--Enterths300000 (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not you, then why would you get blocked? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Check User will explain to you afterwards--Enterths300000 (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you are basically saying you are a sock of another user? How about saving us the trouble and fess up? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will not because as theredpenofdoom mentioned soursepen could be the sock of another master sock . I want to know who he is That's why check user is necessary--Enterths300000 (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@King of Hearts: Sorry, I had forgotten to update this, it is probably ZORDANLIGHTER based on the comments [1] made on my talk page. The knowledge of LX is kinda a giveaway. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no relation with this sourcepan. But I am not the main concern for you people. I am sure one of the check user is a meat puppet of a blocked user. However I am not accusing the check users who investigated against me now or before. I am not joking or making any wild guessEnterths300000 (talk) 04:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Additional information needed - Clerk declined. 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:

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.
At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk endorsed - King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk note: There is also a case for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sourcepen -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ZORDANLIGHTER (talk · contribs) is Possible to Enterths300000. Use the behavoiral evidence, if any, over the CU result though. @Darkness Shines: Please clarify if Sourcepan is still part of the investigation. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DeltaQuad:, I am still of the opinion that Sourcepan is a sock, the fact that both users were created so close together, both got int oconfilcts with the REPoD, on the same articles, just screams sock or meat. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: @Darkness Shines: It is Unlikely. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 04:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]