Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nc1701/Archive

Evidence submitted by Xeeron
Both new accounts entered a long, old and controversial discussion on the name of 2008 South Ossetia war as their first and only edits. Both entered on the same side and used similar reasoning and discussion style. Both demonstrated a deep knowledge of the previous discussion (which is mainly buried in the lengthy archives) and cited wikipedia rules. The chances that two new users at the same time decide to read up on wiki rules and to dig through 31 archive pages to write a lengthy talk page rebuttal of the same user seems remote.

As a note, several users who might have in interest in the discussion are under editing restrictions per Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren --Xeeron (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

CheckUser requests
Requested by Xeeron (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Behavioral evidence clearly indicates that these two accounts are the same user. No CU necessary. –MuZemike 17:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * One caveat... The Billy Mays account is username blocked (per my UAA report), so may have followed the instructions to register a new account. A CU might pick this account up, and also determine if this little sockfarm is related to other participants in the contentious discussion Xeeron refers to. Edging into fishing, but...Nathan  T 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The only problem with that is that Nc1701 was created before Billy Mays was. –MuZemike 17:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * – I'm going to let a CheckUser do a check here per some private evidence which I will not mention on-wiki. –MuZemike 04:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * MuZemike - can you email me what you have, please? Results are a little weird here - A l is o n  ❤ 00:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Will give him a ping on his talk page. NW ( Talk ) 00:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * MuZemike - thanks for the email on this issue. Replied now - A l is o n  ❤ 07:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, both of these accounts are ❌ to each other - A l is o n  ❤ 07:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Conclusions
Blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 17:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Given the almost-identical editing patterns as well as the still-present suspicion that these two users have to be socks of somebody, I am not inclined to unblock at this time. If another administrator has a compelling reason warranting unblocking, then I will remain open to that. –MuZemike 19:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with MuZemike. Both accounts are clearly socks; though they may not be related, despite the similarity in their arguments, its clear they are sock accounts used to comment in a highly contentious nationalist dispute. Nathan  T 22:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)