Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChetieSchoolTV7/Archive

22 October 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Extremely similar hoaxes have been created and/or propagated by these accounts. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Rschen7754, is there a proper reason for declining performing a check for the first and third accounts above, neither of which is stale nor a public IP? (I can provide diffs if you think it's really necessary, but I thought of this case as extremely obvious in terms of reasoning for a check.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 08:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * They're also indefinitely blocked, and without a history of sleepers, CU isn't really needed here. --Rschen7754 08:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Rschen7754, the first account is only blocked for its username - perhaps that should be changed then. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 08:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Rschen7754, I think the block reasoning should be vandalism, not multiple account abuse, since this case is not yet closed. Also, shouldn't the status of this case be "cudeclined", not "declined"? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:18, 1 November 2013 (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

 * - No diffs presented, one account is stale, we can't connect accounts to IPs publicly, etc. Rschen7754 05:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Block on the master changed. A decline only refers to the CU part of the request; admins are free to take further action if they feel it necessary. --Rschen7754 08:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Accounts are already blocked, and the IPs are old to the point where blocking them would serve no purpose. Closing without further action. Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 22:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)