Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Igoldste/Archive

Evidence submitted by Cirt
I have in the past queried the account about its username and asked it to change to a username more in-line with site policy. I reported the matter to WP:ANI (archived thread), and it was also discussed at WP:AN (archived thread). Finally, I started a discussion about the account's choice of username at Requests for comment/User names (archived thread).
 * Brief background with NERIC-Security

Recently the account showed up at my talk page to question my actions with regard to a vandalism-only account which was subsequently indefinitely blocked, see. The account was also used to inject itself into a WP:SPI investigation I filed with regard to that account.
 * Igoldste usage

Where there are two accounts, there are possibly more, and I feel that a checkuser investigation is warranted here, especially with respect to the WP:SOCK nature of the usage of the accounts for dual purposes with regard to randomly showing up at the SPI investigation I had filed. Thank you for your time. Cirt (talk) 05:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The account created the disambiguation page, relating to the organization that the  account states it is associated with. Cirt (talk) 05:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note
 * Comment: 's comments questioning my admin action at my talk page, and then questioning my sock report at an SPI case page seem quite curious, especially in light of my prior interaction with the  account. It seems like  showed up at the SPI case page with a self-professed desire to get more involved with helping out, to "learn", as a mask for retaliatory wikistalking. Why did he choose that particular SPI case page? It would seem it was because I was the one that filed the request for that particular SPI investigation. Cirt (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

CheckUser requests
Requested by Cirt (talk) 05:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Due to above as described in evidence, the accounts are being used inappropriately in a retaliatory fashion for my actions with regard to the account. Cirt (talk) 05:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

MuZemike 15:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

On hold - This case has some elements that I am not sure how to deal with, so I am going to place this case on hold until I can get some advice on how to proceed. J.delanoy gabs adds 16:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not see any evidence of abusive sockpuppetry here. J.delanoy gabs adds  22:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any evidence of team tagging between both accounts. -- Luk  talk 00:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

 * Closing per J.delanoy. NW ( Talk ) 00:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)