Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FrancisLightHouse/Archive

Report date August 7 2009, 02:20 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * Evidence submitted by PopMusicWillNeverBeLowBrow

User:FrancisLightHouse-Web
 * Deletion logs of "FrancisLightHouse Vs Wikipedia"
 * Suspected sock puppets/FrancisLightHouse
 * This user tried to recreate page FrancisLightHouse Vs Wikipedia twice in one hour, after it had already been speedy deleted before. This first, time it was created by User:FrancisLightHouse (sock puppet). Also note similarity in names to Suspected sock puppets/FrancisLightHouse. In short, WP:QUACK.

User:FLHWEBUSVA
 * User talk:FLHWEBUSVA
 * [User creation log
 * User created account almost immediately after users and admins reverted vandalism by User:FrancisLightHouse-Web on page FrancisLightHouse Vs Wikipedia, and continued to vandalize the page as well.

User:96.249.235.100'
 * Edit 1
 * Edit 2
 * Edit 3
 * User talk:96.249.235.100
 * Suspected sock puppets/FrancisLightHouse
 * Suspected sock puppets/Pakhtun Tanoli
 * User tried to blank both sock puppet cases while commenting that "Wikipedia doesn't have the right to have info about FrancisLightHouse". The user also vandalized Wikipedia and continued to recreate page FrancisLightHouse Vs Wikipedia

I think that people can note how all four accounts, plus the IP user are connected via FrancisLightHouse Vs Wikipedia from sock-User:FrancisLightHouse.


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by  Pop Music Buff talk  02:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Save for User:Pakhtun Tanoli, account names and behavioral evidence clearly indicate that these accounts are the same user. It is also for certain that Tanoli is unrelated as the IPs at Suspected sock puppets/Pakhtun Tanoli come from Spain, while the IP in this SPI comes from Virginia. MuZemike 00:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions

Evidence submitted by TParis00ap
The first two users are obvious by their name. The IP address only has 3 edits all related to the archived SPI case.--TParis00ap (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Conclusions

 * Two accounts blocked. The IP hasn't edited in almost a year and has therefore been left alone. NW ( Talk ) 17:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)