Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ArrowPointingUp/Archive

Evidence submitted by Torchwoodwho
User ArrowPointingUp has made only two contributions, both in places recently edited by Mbz1. Grapebowl is a blocked account which had frequent negative interaction with this user. Mbz1 asked for my thoughts on my talk page. I have not been directly involved in content disputes with either party outside of two distinct and separate AfDs, but the new account seems suspicious, especially with their first edit being on the first AfD that Mbz1 participated in after returning from retirement. Torchwood Who? (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Grapebowl was known to have been a sock, but I can't locate the original account's name.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 22:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * According to this section, it looks like User:Franklin.vp. TN X Man  22:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
I'm slightly confused (and perhaps I've misunderstood the context?). ArrowPointingUp has two contributions which, while not exactly helpful, don't mention Mbz1 at all. Is there more evidence here? TN X Man 22:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No other evidence, just a strange coincidence that the user appeared shortly after Mbz1 began editing again and went immediately to the noted AfD without any other contributions. The user's second contribution was an edit of Mbz1's comments here . When Mbz1 confronted the user on their talk page the alleged sock stopped making contributions to the project with no discussion.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Both and so far only contributions are directly connected to me. One is a vote at the deletion requested I voted on. The account voted there right after I did, the other contribution was made on my FP nomination,  but if the user will not cause any disruptions maybe he should be allowed to contribute? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence is sketchy at best. I'm tempted to decline CU based on the fact there isn't much reason to believe there is a connection. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 03:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is very suspicious for a new user to immmediately jump into AFD's and featured content discussions; those areas are not well known to the actual new user, and their AFD comment also doesn't sound like a newbie. The problem is, even if it is a old user, the relation here is somewhat tenuous, so a checkuser thing would be borderline fishing. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 05:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This may well be a sockpuppet, but considering that (1) the evidence is not totally conclusive, (2) the account has not been significantly disruptive, and (3) the account has not edited for five days, I think we may as well drop this case. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * - Per the two CUs, NativeForeigner; IMO this doesn't have enough evidence for a CU. That counts four who don't think this is a good idea. WP:SNOW before this becomes a !vote. If there is more evidence, feel free to ask for CU again. -- DQ  (t)  (e)  23:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * JamesBWatson closed this up as no action to be taken. -- DQ  (t)  (e)  21:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)