Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Danrz/Archive

Report date March 19 2010, 03:36 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets



Editor appears to be using sockpuppet to avoid warring block.  ttonyb (talk) 03:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by  ttonyb (talk)

Oh please. This is obviously the work of one of you people. Barneystimpleton (talk) 03:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Oh please. This is obviously you people making frivolous claims. NavalExpanse (talk) 04:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Mmmm.... I'm just a birdie, too! NavalExpanse (talk) 07:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Continuing the same edits in 1991; Checkuser reasons NOW evading block, formerly only evading 3RR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

Reverts at 1991 include:
 * 1) 02:33 as master
 * 2) 02:46
 * 3) 02:51
 * 4) 02:55
 * 5) 03:07
 * 6) 03:10
 * 7) 03:39
 * block at 04:01
 * 1) 04:52 as sock
 * 2) 04:59 as sock


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

these users look fairly likely to be socks, however, I'd prefer it if a CU could please confirm the link. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 10:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * is to be . However, NavalExpanse seems to have his own socking issues. More to follow once I get a chance to look in further depth -  A l is o n  ❤ 04:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok. So the other account here, was shown to have been using multiple accounts as part of this check and a cursory glance shows at least some of them to be used to evade scrutiny. See here and here, for just two examples - there are others. There appear to be two distinct editors, though, at this address as there is another person using the same computer who just creates accounts with abusive names. They may or may not be the same editor. I'm assuming they're not. Most of these accounts appear to have some beef with User:Arthur Rubin.


 * The following accounts are socks of the same editor;


 * - this could possibly link to the accounts below, per the username issues and the subsequent talkpage debate. The same one plays out each time.
 * - this could possibly link to the accounts below, per the username issues and the subsequent talkpage debate. The same one plays out each time.
 * - this could possibly link to the accounts below, per the username issues and the subsequent talkpage debate. The same one plays out each time.
 * - this could possibly link to the accounts below, per the username issues and the subsequent talkpage debate. The same one plays out each time.
 * - this could possibly link to the accounts below, per the username issues and the subsequent talkpage debate. The same one plays out each time.
 * - this could possibly link to the accounts below, per the username issues and the subsequent talkpage debate. The same one plays out each time.
 * - this could possibly link to the accounts below, per the username issues and the subsequent talkpage debate. The same one plays out each time.
 * - this could possibly link to the accounts below, per the username issues and the subsequent talkpage debate. The same one plays out each time.
 * - this could possibly link to the accounts below, per the username issues and the subsequent talkpage debate. The same one plays out each time.
 * - this could possibly link to the accounts below, per the username issues and the subsequent talkpage debate. The same one plays out each time.
 * - this could possibly link to the accounts below, per the username issues and the subsequent talkpage debate. The same one plays out each time.


 * The following accounts are socks of the same editor - these appear to be just trying to make a point by having dubious usernames which continually get blocked;




 * - A l is o n  ❤ 05:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Moved to show as the sockmaster, who seems to have the earliest registration date. Tim Song (talk) 06:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged. Tim Song (talk) 06:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Conclusions