Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Imnotacoolguy

''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it .''

Imnotacoolguy


This user hasd constantly been bitey to me about my articles. One of the IPs made this edit. Most or all of the accounts edits are my articles. Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 22:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Code letter: G
 * Supporting evidence:

I am really seeing no large scale pattern of abuse. A block may be in order for the IP that made that edit, but I am not seeing anything justifying a CheckUser being ran. Tiptoety talk 22:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there is this and this.  Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 22:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If the diff's are not conclusive of a large scale pattern of abise, they do seem quite indicative of a small scale attack on this one editor. I am myself quite concerned that the User:Imnotacoolguy and these others appear as SPAs intent on giving User:Schuym1 a lot of grief.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

If this is the sum of the evidence of abusive sockpuppetry, I shall mark this as. There needs to be substantial evidence that there are accounts whose editing breaches our sockpuppetry policy. As yet, I have not seen such evidence. Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this is valid justification for a CU, but there is reason for suspicion that Imnotacoolguy is itself a sock. The first contrib comes from October 19, and on October 23 the user page was created, with the text "if we're going to be sticklers then we're going to be sticklers.....  what i do.. i make sure articles are valid and need to be here.. if they do not.. i nominate them for deletion."  This is not the behavior of a brand new editor. Looie496 (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not all socks go against policy, even if they don't mention their old account. WP:SOCK explains a few scenarios. &mdash; neuro(talk) 10:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The Imnotacoolguy account was created on October 19, apparently for the purpose of giving a "keep" vote in the deletion debate for Ruet Caelum, an article about a band that in the end was deleted as non-notable, see Articles for deletion/Ruet Caelum. Schuym1 gave a "delete" vote in that debate.  It appears that Imnotacoolguy then took it as his mission to try to get articles that Schuym1 worked on deleted.  This is not the behavior of a legit sock.  It seems likely that a look at the history of Ruet Caelum would give more insight, but unfortunately that's not available to me because the article has been deleted. Looie496 (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I posted more info here: User talk:98.21.185.149. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 23:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As this behaviour would probably be an abuse of sockpuppets if he was a sock, I ran a check. I see no existing accounts that I can link him to.  .  Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it. Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.''