Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/81.131.6.69/Archive

Report date January 29 2009, 01:53 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets



Martinphi a banned user has been accused of sockpuppetry on ANI here.. Checkuser needed to verify or not the accusation.(olive (talk) 01:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC))
 * Evidence
 * Specifically, this IP's prose bears strong style and content similarities to that of User:Martinphi and Martin's confirmed sockpuppet User:Durga's Trident, which he used to disrupt an arbitration proceeding. Skinwalker (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the style and content look completely different than Durga's Trident:  Dreadstar  â   02:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I made the request for a Checkuser to clarify accusations made against a user, as my wording above indicates, who was unable to be present himself, and in a situation where a discussion looked to be escalating into, once again, a nice case of Wikidrama, as has often been the case if either Science Apologist or Martinphi come up in conversation. Neither SA or Martinphi was part of the discussion. Perhaps accusation should be laid out in the appropriate venues as cases with diffs as proof, then such discussions would be less likely to occur and such use of Checkusers not needed. Just my opinion, but I would prefer us to treat all editors as if they were real people with feelings and reputations, and  whatever our opinions might be of them, with respect.(olive (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC))


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users
 * Given the apparent UK location, and the writing style, Iantresman is my guess. (Iantreman also has used sockpuppets to attack ScienceApologist). Cardamon (talk) 03:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Those bullet points look familiar, don't they. Kevin (talk) 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are we asking for checkuser for a single edit? Am I missing something? -  brenneman  04:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The single edit was used to present a suspiciously familiar set of info designed to stir up a shit storm against ScienceApologist. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  04:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I'm not thick. What I'm saying is that what does a checkuser hope to gain at this point?  We're going to double-ban User:Martinphi?  We're going to hard-block a probable throw-away (and possibly shared) IP?  Checkuser isn't required until there's actually a problem for it to solve, right? -  brenneman  05:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe, based on comments by and, the purpose of the checkuser request was actually to defend . If this is accurate, it's not really a great use of checkuser. I agree with the comment below that this is more likely to be . &mdash; Scientizzle 19:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For whatever it may be worth, I notice here that the similar IP 81.131.9.117 was also recently suspected of being Iantresman. Cardamon (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * CheckUser requests

People are talking about CU, but the case contains no CU request. If CU is wanted, can somebody make a case for it by adding RFCU Mayalld (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

- Tiptoety  talk 04:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

--Deskana (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Tiptoety talk 19:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ❌ when checked against Martinphi.
 * when checked against Iantresman.