Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Inhwiki/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets

• 90.193.10.24 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 90.193.10.67 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Smhiac (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• SHowley (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Evidence submitted by MuZemike

Votestacking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sacred Gin. Note that 90.193.10.67 has been blocked for 1 year for making a legal threat as noted [1]. Both IPs go to London to the same ISP. All rationales for keeping are nearly identical. MuZemike 06:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

CheckUser requests

Checkuser request – code letter: C (Vote stacking affecting outcome )

Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by MuZemike 06:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Clerk note: While I think it sucks, CheckUser requests are not to be ran unless the !vote stacking effected the outcome. Tiptoety ^talk 06:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk declined CU not needed; we can WP:DUCK block and strike the votes, as the discussion has not closed yet. — Jake Wartenberg 21:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Post-close note, I blocked Spiritdrinker (talk · contribs) for displaying the same behaviour. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Post-close note I blocked RegencyPost (talk · contribs) for displaying the same behaviour. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

• WP:DUCK. SPAs with edits only to the AfD. Accounts blocked indefinitely and the IPs softblocked for a week. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Clerk note: Accounts tagged; looks good. Archiving. — Jake Wartenberg 21:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

• Inhwiki2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Evidence submitted by TrulyBlue (talk)

New account to get round sockpuppetry ban. Making disruptive edits to deletion discussion (striking through votes that user disagrees with). Admits previous sockpuppetry. Previous sockpuppets & anon contribs included legal threats (see previous sockpuppetry case). User claims that some of the banned socks were not him. TrulyBlue (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

CheckUser requests

Checkuser request – code letter: A (Arbcom ban/sanction evasion )

Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by TrulyBlue (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

•  Clerk declined No CU needed to confirm in this case, duck block. Nathan ^T 15:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

• Blocked and tagged. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]