Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iamobjective/Archive

14 February 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Emails sent outside of wiki. Please assist in checking IP Addresses. Edits consistent with 2 specific pages user is wrongly editing. Jonathanglick13 (talk) 12:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

These editors don't have even a single page edited in common. Even if they are the same person, why would this be a problem? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * If I'm understanding this correctly, they both contacted you outside of Wikipedia? That doesn't make them sockpuppets. And without actual evidence of socking or malicious use in any way, I can't justify a checkuser. So I'm closing unless further evidence is provided. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

16 February 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

This user's first edit was to create the case at Sockpuppet investigations/Babasalichai, and the account was created to complain about another editor - Shotgunsonthewhip - being intimidated. Something's up here. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 05:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


Tiptoety talk 05:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well then. I've moved this case to reflect Iamobjective as the master (previously it was Leaftwisted), and Tiptoety blocked them all, so.. we're done, I guess. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 05:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, can someone review Beobjectiveplease please? Tiptoety  talk 05:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How do you mean? Like, checking for behavioral evidence or something? (I've unclosed this account so we can look at this.) —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 05:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would like a second opinion based on the behavioral evidence. Tiptoety  talk 15:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I dont know how to check but can you check beobjectiveplease against these other people ? I believe there could be a link between all of them ? please advise I dont know how to check it ? Babasalichai (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Beobjectiveplease was unblocked following some off-Wiki discussion. It looks like you've been getting yourself into some hot water for your edits - particularly with potentially outing that editor - so my advice to you would be to let this one go and stop causing trouble. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * has earned himself a block for issues stemming from this case. In order to attempt to diffuse this situation could a clerk archive this case please? Thanks, Tiptoety  talk 00:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)