Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ln of x/Archive

Report date October 13 2009, 01:44 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

I suspect this editor of being a sock puppet because of the very similar edits going on between the two accounts. Evidence can be found at [], [] and []. All accounts are currently blocked indefinitely. 5 albert square (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by 5 albert square (talk)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by 5 albert square (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Already blocked by AnemoneProjector per DUCK. Not sure what else checkuser can accomplish here. Nathan  T 18:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * : Actually, looking further into this -- there is some history here, and it doesn't look like there has been a checkuser on the Ln of x sockfarm (up to 51 accounts, according to the category). These accounts are rightly DUCK blocked, but checkuser might be useful to establish whether a rangeblock can be useful and to suss out sleeper accounts or missed socks. Nathan  T 18:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

✅ =
 * Conclusions



and could be also. Both of them are editing from the same ranges as the above, and they have identical (and extremely uncommon) user agents as the above. Their contribs don't match up well, though, so I am not sure. J.delanoy gabs adds 19:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Chriscgw999 not blocked because of the different topic they are editing; Keribon blocked by another admin. If Chriscgw999 causes any trouble, he should be blocked immediately. NW ( Talk ) 02:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Report date December 21 2009, 00:41 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

The two accounts have made very similar edits to the page. Evidence includes [], [], [], [] 5 albert square (talk) 00:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by 5 albert square (talk)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by 5 albert square (talk) 00:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

– Behavioral evidence clearly indicates that this is "the natural log of x". No CU necessary. –MuZemike 20:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Already blocked and tagged by another admin. –MuZemike 20:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date January 18 2010, 02:09 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Very very similar edits. Evidence includes [], [], [] and [] 5 albert square (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by 5 albert square (talk)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Well, one very similar edit. But the point is that User:Ln of x is banned, so even one is one too many. Rhomb (talk) 07:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 02:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Evidence submitted by AnemoneProjectors
Normally I'm able to WP:DUCK block Ln of x but this time the edits aren't typical, but I still think Ru-boiii is probably Ln of x (due to edits made to Lorna Fitzgerald), which is why I've requested checkuser. User:Is this bass really strong enough?? is the last Ln of x account that I duck blocked, so I've included that as Ln of x is most certainly stale. anemoneprojectors  talk  10:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

I think this is in bad faith Ru-boiii (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ru-boiii (talk • contribs) 18:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by anemoneprojectors   talk  10:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The following are ✅ matches for each other:
 * One of the above is currently blocked as a sock of User:Ln of x; the above accounts are also matches for some other blocked accounts, including:
 * – Luna Santin  (talk) 01:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Everyone's blocked. TN X Man  03:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * – Luna Santin  (talk) 01:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Everyone's blocked. TN X Man  03:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * – Luna Santin  (talk) 01:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Everyone's blocked. TN X Man  03:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Everyone's blocked. TN X Man  03:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Likely accounts tagged as suspected sockpuppets. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>  ( Talk ) 03:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)