Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mr Unsigned Anon/Archive

Evidence submitted by Cptnono
I am opening this case since multiple editors, including admins, have suspected it but no action has been taken. An edit (diff) during an arbitration enforcement case against him summarized the concern well: "...appears to be a recycled user. For somebody who's been here less than a month, it's odd that they have references to WP:NAM all over their talk page. They made a bee line straight to the PIA dispute and engaged in the battle. Could a checkuser see whether this account is controlled by somebody who is already banned or restricted?" -User:Jehochman This was followed by a mention (don't know if it was an endorsement) from AGK that someone with the ability to check user could be flagged down and then Jehochman's decision to not do so.(diff).

Although Anon's advanced knowledge of Wikipeida and the arbitration enforcement process could be gained since September 24, it is not likely. Many editors have been blocked from this page and there is reason to suspect that it is not a new user. I understand this is against assuming good faith. He also has done some good on the page (his efforts in gettig the lock off were great) but think this needs to be investigated to clear the air and make sure everyone is on the same page history wise.

For the sake of transparency, this request follows several discussions on the arbitration enforcement page and Gaza War pages. Although other editors' transgressions do not make Anon's (alleged) OK, this is information I'm sure will be considered. I personally would be happiest if people stopped treating Wikipedia like Survivor and maybe getting everything straight will help. Cptnono (talk) 09:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Follow-up: I think He just provided the answer on my talk page: "Lot of jobb for finding out a username who just forgot its password." If he is a former user who was not banned then a simple "Hey, I'm so and so. My bad for not saying it earlier" is OK by me and makes the perfect ending. Cptnono (talk) 09:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "And yes I changed my earlier password when I was drunk... Still no bans or restrictions." No problem it looks like since it doesn't fall under "avoid scrutiny; mislead or deceive other editors; edit project discussions (eg policy debates and Arbitration proceedings); make disruptive edits with one account and normal edits with another; distort consensus; stir up controversy; or circumvent sanctions or policy."Cptnono (talk) 09:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Not fishing since there is supporting evidence (unless you are using a different definition). Weak evidence is understadnable reasoning, though.I also didn't request a check user but an investigation. Doesn't matter anyways, he has now admitted to it and previousley wasn't blocked so I don't see a problem. Feel free to close this out.Cptnono (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Muzemike, I hope you'll reconsider a checkuser given this statement: "And still, I think Ihave less edits on those accounts together than on this." I'm coming to this in good faith, just trying to get Gaza War in check from an adminly perspective, having never edited it myself aside from trying to neutralize the never-ending edit warring. I just asked this user to comment on the other accounts. tedder (talk) 06:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Currently blocked for one of many recent personal attacks he's authored.  Enigma msg  07:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Who are the suspected socks of Mr Unsigned Anon? There's none listed, and I'm not willing to accept nor endorse a CU with the current weak evidence given. . MuZemike 18:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I would endorse a checkuser because the editor has apparently admitted to abusive sockpuppeteering, along with launching a bunch of malicious personal attacks.  Enigma msg  06:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note (from WP:CHECKUSER) "Checking an account where the alleged sockmaster is unknown, but there is reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry is not fishing.". —  Jake   Wartenberg  22:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Nothing of note. Brandon (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)