Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cherrypicker999/Archive

23 February 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

User account signed up to join in a dispute at Talk:King Henry VIII School, Coventry. IP1: Similar language and use of "do you accept" (see here and here. IP2: Talks about challenging rules as does the account as well as arguing the same point in a similar fashion here and here (with ref to Nottingham). More suspicious about IP1 than IP2 but asking for a check on both as I think there's enough evidence to warrant one. The user of the account has categorically denied being previously involved in the discussion when I asked them here. Mato (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Per Mato, this quacks. Repeated edit warring over nonsense that began with simple disruptive soapboxing, then moved here , and has escalated through multiple accounts. It's easy enough to improve an article, without the drama these accounts have provoked. This article talk page has become a textbook on timesink . 99.12.242.7 (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Certainly there are grounds for a WP:DUCK block, but checkusers don't generally link accounts to IP addresses, so I've declined the CU request.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  23:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Gave the IPs a week, master 10 days per disruption. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  01:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)