Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lukeklein

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

Lukeklein





 * '''Code Letter:D


 * Supporting evidence: Identical writing styles and identical mistakes in coding.

This might be a case for a forensic writing specialist. In the debate to delete the article on Jeffrey A. Klein MD, User:Procession appeared midway through the debate in support of the article, written by User:Lukeklein (who I believe is the son of the subject of the article - some COI problems there, perhaps). If you read the entries from both users, the writing styles appear to be identical. Both users also make the error of not signing their entries in the debate, which is something no other person in the discussion has done. Furthermore, User:Procession has only been involved in this debate and a single entry in another article that is designed to strengthen the argument in favor of maintaining the Dr. Klein article -- why the single interest? You can review the text of the debate and the similarity between the two users' at:[]. The debate ended in favor of keeping the article. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

✅. Thatcher 22:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked Procession. Leaving block/not on Lukeklein to the discretion of another admin, since Procession hasn't edited in several days. – Luna Santin  (talk) 09:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on photographic evidence presented to the unblock-en-l mailing list, these accounts are in fact held by different people. Meatpuppetry may be a problem, but sockpuppetry is not. --Chris (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, I unblocked User:Procession yesterday because of this. --Chris (talk) 17:08, 24 April 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.''