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

22 May 2013

Suspected sockpuppets

• Starmute ( 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 users have a similar obsessive need to edit the Sandbox, have very similar editing patterns, and both users "think in bytecode and dream of electric sheep." GSK ● ✉ ✓ 00:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC) reply

That is the prog-N template. He told me about it; I found it funny. Starmute Talk 01:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC) reply

An obsessive need? I used the sandbox a few times to test syntax, not any "obsessive need." Starmute Talk 01:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC) reply

These edits by Starmute ( [1], [2], [3]) are similar enough to these by Soda drinker ( [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]) to warrant a CU, in my opinion. Additionally, Starmute has already claimed WP:BROTHER, so there is a very real chance that this could be a sock. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 22:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. In my house, my brother and I share one computer. Have I done anything childish, as he has? No. It can be surely said that I am not Soda Drinker, and am not guilty of sockpuppetry. Starmute Talk 00:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

•  Clerk declined - Sorry, but I don't see enough behavioral similarity here. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Blocked, closing. By the way, there is no need to request CheckUser when a positive result will not advance the case at all (since they are claiming to share an IP). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC) reply