Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Rascalpatrol

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

Rascalpatrol


Older suspected socks:


 * Code letter: D (probably, but not sure what "closed vote" specifically refers to; definately: "Disruptive "throwaway" account used only for a few edits".

I suspect the first four users in the above list are socks intended to influence the AfD discussion here. That discussion revolves around a political scandal in British Columbia, Canada. There has been considerable edit warring on the two related Wikipedia articles by the apparent socks: Erik Bornmann and BC Legislature Raids. I haven't been involved in editing those articles, and gleaned these names from the edit histories. I also filed a report on the suspected sock puppet page here, but see there's a significant back log there, and considering the AfD discussion, this is somewhat time-sensitive. Also, it seems that a simple check on the user accounts could clear a lot up in short order. It's a messy political issue that's only become messier and dirtier by these single-issue users/suspected socks. Bobanny 21:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Clerk note &bull; The current discussion is not closed and cannot be entertained until it has been closed, in accordance with code letter D. For clarification, a closed discussion means, essentially, a finished one, and this one is still ongoing. The closer of the AfD discussion with place a clear notice when the discussion is closed and we can entertain it at that time. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 19:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * closed now, "no concensus default to keep". Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 12:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

They may want to overturn that AfD. Oh well. ✅ that these are all one-off sockpuppets of somebody. I'm willing to entertain the possibility that there's a second user involved, but probably no more than that. Add these users as well to the sock list: --Mackensen (talk) 13:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I closed the AFD, it would have been handy to have known this was going on. Given that the socks all voted 'delete', and I closed it as a no consensus / keep (the fact so many SPAs had voted 'delete' made me suspicious and very reluctant to close as 'delete'), it's nice to be proven right.  Proto ::  ►  14:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have blocked all the socks, as they have continued to subvert pages. The accounts  and  do not seem to exist.  Proto ::  ►  09:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's actually . Carson 18:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ...and (confusing by design). Bobanny 19:30, 9 January 2007 (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.''