Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Askebh/Archive

Report date April 16 2009, 20:24 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Casual sock puppetry, vandalism and falsifications from the 87.... range. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof! ) 20:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof! )


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Blocked and tagged. Tiptoety talk 22:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date April 23 2009, 18:22 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Please issue a longer block for this IP. In fact, given the amount of vandalism and sock puppetry from this IP range, sth like a range block should be considered. Miacek (t) 18:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Miacek  (t)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * SPI is for presenting evidence of abusive sockpuppetry. If evidence is presented, blocks may result. The extent of those blocks will be decided by the reviewing admin. Filing a case that presents absolutely no evidence, but asks for blocks is NOT going to get you anywhere. Mayalld (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Poor thing: the case is crystal clear (as all previous vol's ), just look at the contributions lists and a few diffs! In fact, what this long term abuser has been doing for months is just vandalism (falsifications ), but I usually refer to him only for sock puppetry, because this is easier to understand for most admins. -- Miacek  (t) 07:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

all accounts listed in this case were already indef blocked when it was opened, and the IP is blocked until August. No action required. Mayalld (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions