Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ExecutivePerils/Archive

Evidence submitted by Rohedin
This case is based on technical evidence, we have a blocked main and a unblocked but likely sock that made a comment on the same day as the blocked main, this is where the technical stuff comes into action. ExecutivePerils was blocked on the same day as the sock made a comment on a talk page of a article I nominated for deletion, but what technically makes the user a sock is that he made a comment at least fifteen hours after the blocking of the main. Rohedin TALK 14:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Rohedin  TALK 14:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously the same user, per his own comments, but: the original account was UsernameBlocked, with the recommendation to create a new, neutral and personal account name. They followed that recommendation. Not abusive socking. Amalthea 00:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Echoing what Amalthea said, according to their logs, ExecutivePerils created Broker310EP, so it seems that they were following the recommendation given to them.  E lockid  ( Talk ) 00:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)