Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AdminAbuse/Archive

12 November 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The seemingly random question located here indicates a possible sock, especially given the date the AdminAbuse user was blocked. GSK ● talk ● contribs 01:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * User:AdminAbuse was blocked for a bad username. An editor blocked only for that reason is allowed to create a new account with an acceptable username, so technically there would be no violation here even if the SPI comes up positive. Of course, it's quite possible that AdminAbuse was himself a sockpuppet, but since StopTheCrueltyNow appears likely to be blocked in short order for that account's own conduct, it probably isn't necessary to dig that out right now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * - The AdminAbuse account is long since stale anyway. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there is enough to suggest abuse is ongoing and taking a look to get anymore accounts that are around are to protect from abuse, so the check is justified. Saying that, the following are ✅ to each other as far as I can tell:

-- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  03:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Reviewed and confirmed. Risker (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)