Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hxseek/Archive

Evidence submitted by Ian.thomson
Both accounts are borderline uncivil (accusations of nationalism) in their insistance that Greater Iran doesn't exist and that "Cambridge History of Iran," the Rutgers University Press, and Routledge are unreliable sources for the Scythians article. Appears to be circumventing 3RR (by the way, I'm at the end of my rope with that). Ian.thomson (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Hello. Yes, that mentioned anonymous IP edit was made by me, simply becuase I failed to log in. An honest oversight, and a one-off, as it is clear. As for Mr Thompson's unjustified claim, he is incorrect. "Greater Iran" does have nationalistic connotations, and the Source sighted is the only one out of all the others cited on the relevant article which uses such a term. Not only is it politically-charged term, it is anachronistic (there was no Iran in 1000 BC !), more accurate and descriptively neutral terms exist, and as I said, the majority of soruces do not ascribe the location in question to Greater Iran. Howeverm, this latter issue will attempted to be resolved in relavent article talk page for now Hxseek (talk) 01:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
This user is being very disrespectful and making disruptive accusations without providing any evidence but disregarding users questions. This user have Reverted the page 6 times from multiple users under the person's Username and IP's in 24 hours. User does not want cooperate with others and adds own POV theory and refuses any sources. HonestopL04:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Case closed. A single, accidentally logged-out edit is not a matter for checkuser. To the filing party: if you really are concerned such a single IP edit might be an attempt at deception, there is a straightforward way to deal with it: ask the user if it was him. Coming here with an SPI case before making this commonsense first step is not just a waste of everybody's time but also a breach of WP:AGF, and possibly a sign of a disruptive battleground attitude in itself. To everybody: please do not fight out your content disagreements or other complaints on the SPI case page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)