Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Skipsmith

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

Skipsmith



 * <-- This one may not be a sockpuppet, it has a different editing style, but it followed the pattern of aspersions and disparagements proffered by the others.
 * <-- This one may not be a sockpuppet, it has a different editing style, but it followed the pattern of aspersions and disparagements proffered by the others.
 * <-- This one may not be a sockpuppet, it has a different editing style, but it followed the pattern of aspersions and disparagements proffered by the others.
 * <-- This one may not be a sockpuppet, it has a different editing style, but it followed the pattern of aspersions and disparagements proffered by the others.
 * <-- This one may not be a sockpuppet, it has a different editing style, but it followed the pattern of aspersions and disparagements proffered by the others.
 * <-- This one may not be a sockpuppet, it has a different editing style, but it followed the pattern of aspersions and disparagements proffered by the others.
 * <-- This one may not be a sockpuppet, it has a different editing style, but it followed the pattern of aspersions and disparagements proffered by the others.
 * <-- This one may not be a sockpuppet, it has a different editing style, but it followed the pattern of aspersions and disparagements proffered by the others.

The above editors seem to only exist to disparage the article Actuarial Outpost, be it on its talk page or in user:MarkTween's case elsewhere. I believe it is very likely that they are either one or two people, who have had an issue in with the site in the past, and are doing their best to disparage the site wherever possible. Also, please see Suspected sock puppets/Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA which likely has bearing here as well. Avi 20:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Mackensen (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * A reason for the declination would be appreciated. -- Avi 02:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No evidence of sockpuppetry presented and no serious policy violation alleged. Mackensen (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please check the contributions of the above, I think the evidence is strong,. However, it seems that you prefer I take this to Suspected sock puppets, so I shall. Thank you. -- Avi 02:15, 23 July 2006 (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.''