User talk:PuttumKadalayum

Welcome!

 * }

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/DileepKS69 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It will have to be done by another administrator with CheckUser. You may need to be patient. Daniel Case (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't say much more than what Tnxman already has - it's, same geographic area, but I can't confirm or deny anything. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 00:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It's sad that this is done only on assumptions and not on any irrefutable evidence/proof. I know its not fair but so is life. Anyway let me thank you for reviewing my case and arriving at a decision quickly.PuttumKadalayum

September 2011

 * Hersfold pegged you as a possible. With the behavioral evidence, that's solid enough to support a block. — Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 14:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Pulling checkuser data of my own, I'm inclined to say a link is, but not bordering on any stronger adjectives, such as . The accounts do indeed edit from the same region of the same nation, but the nation is huge, and also ISPs there are notoriously funky. In my view, there are not many other indicators either—technically, at least. I'll let another administrator review this unblock request from a behavioural perspective, but would welcome Hersfold or Tnxman's input on the technical evidence. AGK  [&bull; ] 23:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course, technical data has limited value in many situations. The behavioural evidence is difficult to discern, but on balance this does seem like a DileepKS69 sock… Recommend declining the unblock. AGK  [&bull; ] 23:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)