Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Holdone/Archive

Evidence submitted by Noopinonada
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy&action=history, Noopinonada (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims. This user made personal attacks towards me and called me a sock I went on his talk page to tell him insults aren't going to solve the issue and that we should work together but he responded with more insults to be and called and "Afrocentric" when I reverted the disruptive edit yet he seem to be very fixed on racial topics here on Wiki. I am surpised he only listed 3 people here he claimed I was more people. I don't know what his motives are but it would be wise for his comments and edit history to re reviewed. Thank you Holdone (talk) 02:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This same use who have opened this claim against me and is calling me a sock puppet 1st in the edit summary log of the article and then insulting messages on my page. Keeps on personally attacking me He or she left me another personal attack and sign it under but then he or she decided to change it and came back on my talk page and edited his insults as yet he calls me the sock puppet he/she really needs to be investigated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/76.237.179.105  Thank you Holdone (talk) 03:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, these two (Holdone and Salaam1000) are quite clearly socks/meatpupppets and should be CUed. A quick glance shows that they arrived simultaneously and have only edited to back each other up in a revert-war. We have multiple sockfarms operating in this area: those of and : possibly these two new accounts belong to one of these masters, or, equally possible, one of the previous unrelated trolls has turned their hand to socking as well.  would be the most likely candidate. Moreschi (talk) 09:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
Probably the worst sockpuppeteer in the world. Indefinitely blocked rather more for being so hopelessly bad at it than the actual edit-warring/socking. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
. Simply showing a link to article's history is not strong enough to merit CU. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like this is pretty well in hand. Is a checkuser still necessary given the blocks? Nathan  T 14:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It would help. I need to know if this is a new sockmaster or a reappearance of one of the old ones. Requests for checkuser/Case/Enriquecardova was done by : his input here would be appreciated, I think. Moreschi (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought I should add a concern; upon reviewing the page I realized that user has the same quick lowercase "hello" as an introduction to his page as, as well as an extremely similar editing agenda, if a little more civil.  In fact, it appears that a lot of the sockpuppets that edit the article do a quick "hello" or something similarly curt as their main page.  Since Wapondaponda edits the articles quite similarly, I posit, but am not certain by any means, that there may be a possible good hand/bad hand editor at play with our illustrious Holdone as the person who is the true editor.  I think it is worth a checkuser...it will clear up the doubt about sockpuppets on the article quite a bit.--Noopinonada (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is that CU is not able to go back that far and make connections with these other previously-blocked accounts because they're all stale. –MuZemike 20:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)