Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IndulgentReader/Archive

13 March 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 " ~ "''

User talk page and user pages directly copied and pasted from one user to the second. Jasper Deng (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we should WP:AGF on this one, and just block one. (Indulgent Author in this case) and just explain that users can only have one account. -- Addi hockey  10  e-mail 19:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with ADH10 Awsome EBE123 ( talk | Contribs ) 19:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

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

This puzzles me.... it seems as if the accused user is confused about which account he is on, and has to repeatedly edit to finally get it to make sense. -- Addi hockey  10  e-mail 13:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
no apparent need or justification for CU on this one. I'd like to wait a bit and see what Indulgent Author has to say about the case; I'm assuming this was a botched attempt at renaming or similar. In any case, no edits from IndulgentReader since the Indulgent Author account was registered. Best, SpitfireTally-ho! 20:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Alt account or lost pasword. Zero overlap. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  15:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * please feel free to (re)report this case if anying sock violations occur. SpitfireTally-ho! 17:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)