Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ariella Sinclaire/Archive

Report date March 5 2009, 06:24 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

User:Ariella Sinclaire Pitt was created soon after User:Ariella Sinclaire was Indef Blocked. User is participating in the same actions, creating and recreating same articles (hoaxes, btw) that are speedied and warned by other editors. Now user has userfied the article and put it on her userpage. I don't think Checkuser is necessary; the modus operandi is identical. Valley2 city ‽ 06:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Valley2 city ‽


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

please tag and archive ——  nix eagle email me 01:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * - Missed by bot. Tiptoety  talk 00:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Corrected master account. Tiptoety  talk 01:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked the sock indef. ——  nix eagle email me 01:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Tagged. Tiptoety  talk 01:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date March 8 2009, 22:52 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Created a page named Ariella Sinclaire, currently at CSD, likely sockpuppet. --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 22:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by --Th e DJ (talk • contribs)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Yep, pretty conclusive behavioural evidence; a WP:DUCK case. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 23:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

--Blocked and tagged. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 23:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

- Methinks he's done it again. &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 05:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)