Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kink56/Archive

27 October 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Kink56 created the article SKATTERBRANE yesterday, it was quickly nominated for deletion, on Articles for deletion/SKATTERBRANE, Kink56 and the two suspected sockpuppets(both created after the nomination for deletion) left multiple similar sounding messages, none of the three signed and have been tagged as WP:SPAs by another user, I have no question these are the same person, but I do question more may exist, that Kink56 might not the first, and that these might not be the last. A checkuser could verify that my suspicion is accurate or not, and an administrator could issue an ip block if nessisary. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

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

I guarantee you that I do NOT have mulitiple accounts. Might you condider some of the "Keep" commments belong to people who know are are familiar with the subject of PAFs, guitar pickups and SKATTERBRANE? Yes, I did twice comment to "Keep" myself under my kink56 account. I did not know it was against the rules to make more that one comment. As you can see, I am not trying to mask or hide my identity. I am a newb, and I had no idea that there would be such resistance to my article. I have personally requested a check user on the two suspected accounts. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kink56 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I already ran one. See below. –MuZemike 22:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Sorry, but they seem to be ❌. Could possibly be a person who is getting some online friends to help votestack. –MuZemike 21:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, well lets leave this one because I'm thinking we got meatpuppets on our hands more. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  22:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)