Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kci357/Archive

15 June 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This centers on a low-level edit war over, where added some dubious content with such persistence that they've wound up with a two-week block, refused unblocks and no talk page access. The new account & suspect sock has gone straight into a spurious "vandalism" warning against the GF editor mostly opposing the Kci357's past edits. Smells cheesy to me. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Another attempt by account to revert the same article within 60 seconds after account creation, and the only edit. Blocked user. —EncMstr (talk) 07:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Note: has already been blocked for being a blatant sockpuppet. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - I'm going to decline this CU request, as after reviewing the article I can't see any other potential sockpuppets on that article, so don't really see a need for a CU now we've blocked the listed sock due to being a blatant, quacking sock. No further action seems to be required here. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  13:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Everyone's blocked, so we're done. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

07 September 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Behavioural scare-mongering over ABS plastic hazards with poor understanding and nothing to back it up. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2015 (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

 * - In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
 * 1) At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
 * 2) At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
 * 3) In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  19:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you intend to post diffs or should I close this?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I intend to never waste time posting here again, especially not if you're the one responding. You're clearly far more interested in hassling other editors over bureaucracy than you are in dealing with sockpuppets. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Closing the case.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

16 November 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Same old tub-thumping on plastics safety, with a significant lack of technical competence not to realise how far off track they are. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2015 (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
. You already reported this user before (see archives) and were disruptive to the clerk at the same time. You still haven't presented any diffs. You also filed the report in the wrong place, which I had to fix. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)