Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MisterMeth/Archive

Report date July 8 2009, 09:15 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Editing pattern on Rand Kannenberg and Talk:Rand Kannenberg Jezhotwells (talk) 09:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Jezhotwells (talk)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I am 1 of 4 (now 3) different users with different accounts who worked together and so that meant we shared personal computers and we shared Internet connections at 2 main locations and other facilities as well. I just opened a Wikipedia account a month ago! 1 of my peers has had hers for more than 2 years. Another 1 for a year, maybe. I don't know about the 1 that left. All we had in common was that we are fans of the person the article is about. There has never been any deliberate misuse or abuse. We have not breached the policy I just read on meat puppetry. We were never together. Edits were done separately. We saw each other's work and talked about it, sometimes the same or next day. This claim is false. I started the problem by lowering the rating. I thought it was too high. The rest is history. So is my use of Wikipedia. This drama (read an article about that as well) is too much and makes this encyclopedia less credible in my mind. The accusers have blocked when not allowed to do so, asked others to block for them, gotten others involved by writing on their talk pages. The irony here is that they have been acting like meat puppets. They have been trying to influence each other and as a result are damaging what was a good page. Please close this investigation. Please ask administrators to look into the editors involved in this report, the blocking, and the claims regarding copyright plus everything else.--MisterMeth (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not MisterMeth.--CommCorr (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Jezhotwells (talk) 09:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC) No specific evidence presented to justify CU. Mayalld (talk) 14:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Mayalld, check the page history and the GAN for details. I would recommend the check because they appear to be SPA. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to endorse if you wish. I won't endorse a request, particularly a code-F request that doesn't include diffs. Mayalld (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Confirm the decline. CU is unlikely to be able to confirm or disprove the explanation offered above in any case. Nathan  T 14:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Closing this case. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions