Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AAAACCCCDDDDCCCC/Archive

Evidence submitted by LLTimes
From one place, Similar edits in Chinese American and cooperating together in removing sourced materials and have already passed 3RR and should have been banned by now. One of the Ip from above have edited AAAACCCCDDDDCCCC's talk page, explaining "his" disruptive edits as you can see in here. A few check of that Ip's location reveals that it's similar to other Ips, all in UNITED STATES NEW JERSEY POMPTON PLAINS, with VERIZON INTERNET SERVICES, with exception of Ip "71.251.44.249", nevertheless i suspect these Ips are from one person or same groups of people. LLTimes (talk) 02:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Doesn't sockpuppetry involve more than one account? At worst it is just an editor who doesn't log in, something a lot of IP editors do. Unless you count HongQiGong, all of the above listed when even when combined have reached the limit of 3rr but haven't actually broken it anyways. If you have a problem with an editor's edits, leave a message on their talk page. 109.169.41.20 (talk) 05:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note, the above IP has been blocked as a proxy. SpitfireTally-ho! 13:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
This user has done enough disruption and deception from what I have seen. 71.251.44.0/22 and 71.255.80.0/21 have been blocked for 2 weeks, AAAACCCCDDDDCCCC has been indefinitely blocked. If semi-protection of all involved articles is necessary, then they will be. –MuZemike 05:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by JamesBWatson
Drjsveca has recently been making unblock requests, after silently accepting a block for about three years. At the time of the block it was thought that Drjsveca was a sockpuppet, though no convincing evidence seems, as far as I can find, to have been found. The reawakening of this account after three years follows closely on the blocking of AAAACCCCDDDDCCCC, and it has been suggested on Drjsveca's talk page that they are the same person. Having looked at all the relevant history I can find over the last three years I can find no clear evidence of this, and I am considering unblocking Drjsveca. However, a number of editors including admins have expressed doubt about the user's bona fide, and so I would like to be sure whether there is any evidence before taking any action. I am creating this sock puppet case in the hope that a checkuser can clarify the matter, but of course any other relevant contributions will also be welcome. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
My understanding is that a request was meant to be made for checkuser (though it wasn't), following comments are under that assumption. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 17:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting problem. Unfortunately, because the block is so old, any evidence would be for checkuser purposes at this point. Information years later would be radically different; we can't look back far enough to pull up that evidence. However, as a side note, I point out that checkuser really can't be used to prove innocence, by its nature. Unfortunately, this decision is going to have to be done via behavioral evidence alone. -- Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 17:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, not really. A quick range check of Drjsveca's /22 shows that AAAA... and Drsjveca are the only one on that net with a particular characteristic; between the timing of the request and the CU results, I'd have said on this one. --jpgordon:==( o ) 18:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Marking for close. TN X Man  02:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)