Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Acuffrose/Archive

Evidence submitted by Orangemike

 * SPA account to publicize Lubov Azria, designer for Acuffrose's employer. Recreated previously deleted article on her with close paraphrasing verging on copyvio; Acuffrose then came to her defense on article's talk page. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * The suspected sock seems to deny the claims. Do you believe this to be untrue? If so, which code would you think this case falls under? Your response will assist clerks in assessing the case for CU. Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by NJA (talk • contribs) 09:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not my area of expertise; I do not recall requesting Checkuser. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mike for the comment. I was trying to determine the extent of the situation and to see if you had more evidence for us to disprove their assertions. NJA (t/ c)  10:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that Acuffrose has no negative editing history (besides having a COI), there's no overlap between the two accounts. It's very well possible that the Acuffrose account was abandoned in favor of the Emmamabel account – which is not really abusive socking. –MuZemike 01:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No clear evidence of abusive socking, nor a request for CU by filer. NJA (t/ c)  10:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)