Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nomoskedasticity/Archive

Evidence submitted by FederalInvestigator
Mosmof is very suspiciously backing up Nomoskedasticity, and reverting edits of myself and KerAvelt in our ongoing dispute with Nomoskedasticity over whether Sholom Rubashkin is indeed CEO, while citing no reason at all, despite being asked to do so. First Nomoskedasticity reverts (without any reason) then Mosmof reverts (it seems he is trying to avoid the 3 reverts rule). FederalInvestigator (talk) 03:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims. Talk about bad faith!--FederalInvestigator (talk) 03:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, there are more productive ways to defend against a sockpuppetry claim than creating a bad faith one against the accuser. Anyway, good luck with the Checkuser. Mosmof (talk) 03:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
Please note that the accusation against KerAvelt/FederalInvestigator was confirmed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Bad faith request meant as retribution for mirror accusation. I recommend the clerk close this as declined. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Marking for close. I don't see any connections here. TN X Man  11:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Nomoskedasticity is involved in an edit war with me on Haredi Judaism, where he is trying to add a photo that was removed half a year ago and add another photo. He is stonewalling on the talkpage. When I reverted him a 3rd time after 24 hours, while he still couldn't edit, suddenly this IP6v showed up out of the blue (no other edits on Wikipedia) and undid my edit. Debresser (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
First, we don't publicly connnect IP(s) with named accounts. Second, one IP edit is insufficient to take any action against a long-standing user. This is a dispute that shouldn't have been brought here. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)