Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Imbonwwwww/Archive

04 May 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 " ~ "''

Admin and checkuser User:Tnxman307 has verified the usage of multiple accounts by Imbonwwwww (list is in the evidence link). Kuebie (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't know whether to list the verified sockpuppets into the suspected sockpuppets section. Apologies if I made a mistake. Kuebie (talk) 15:30, 4 May 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

 * (Copied from ANI) All of the following accounts appear to be the same person:
 * TN X Man 16:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am looking at this per User talk:Tnxman307 and see the following should be excluded from blocking but be watched:
 * Though the two top similar usernames might be more convicting. This is leaning on the WP:AGF side. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  21:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * TN X Man 16:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am looking at this per User talk:Tnxman307 and see the following should be excluded from blocking but be watched:
 * Though the two top similar usernames might be more convicting. This is leaning on the WP:AGF side. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  21:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * TN X Man 16:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am looking at this per User talk:Tnxman307 and see the following should be excluded from blocking but be watched:
 * Though the two top similar usernames might be more convicting. This is leaning on the WP:AGF side. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  21:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * TN X Man 16:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am looking at this per User talk:Tnxman307 and see the following should be excluded from blocking but be watched:
 * Though the two top similar usernames might be more convicting. This is leaning on the WP:AGF side. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  21:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * TN X Man 16:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am looking at this per User talk:Tnxman307 and see the following should be excluded from blocking but be watched:
 * Though the two top similar usernames might be more convicting. This is leaning on the WP:AGF side. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  21:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * TN X Man 16:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am looking at this per User talk:Tnxman307 and see the following should be excluded from blocking but be watched:
 * Though the two top similar usernames might be more convicting. This is leaning on the WP:AGF side. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  21:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Though the two top similar usernames might be more convicting. This is leaning on the WP:AGF side. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  21:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Though the two top similar usernames might be more convicting. This is leaning on the WP:AGF side. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  21:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Though the two top similar usernames might be more convicting. This is leaning on the WP:AGF side. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  21:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Though the two top similar usernames might be more convicting. This is leaning on the WP:AGF side. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  21:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * DQ, I'm going to leave them all blocked. Certainly the first two of the second set match the Efficiency thing; TsDavid51 seemed to have similar behavior to Einstein Li 37 (e.g. lots of minor edits in religious articles), and if you go further back, Gaia1CB3 also does the minor edit thing. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine, like I said, I added an extra grain of salt more than I usually do into these, and that's why I got what I got. I was actually undecided about those. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  01:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)