Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PeeJay2K3/Archive

Evidence submitted by Jamen Somasu
I have suspected this for a while and after reading wikipedia's guidelines to SP, I decided I din't have enough evidence of the matter to make a case. However, just a while ago a series of circumstances involving my discussion case definetly brought up some curiosity as to the continuous convenient responses these two have. One only has to look at their history.Jamen Somasu (talk) 01:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Jamen Somasu (talk) 01:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * A glance through their contribution history doesn't show anything suspicious. I'll assume that this filing doesn't have anything to do with your recent dispute with these editors. Lacking any evidence, I suggest this be closed. TN X Man  14:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * severe lack of evidence provided, saying "one only has to look at their history" does not really qualify as evidence. Looking through these users' contributions doesn't turn up any thing to suggest they are all one editor. This SPI case seems to be based on the fact that Digirami and PeeJay2K3 supported each other here and here. However, this is not particularly surprising considering that you opened an arbcom request against them. Looking through the edits of the accounts any possibility of sockpuppetry seems to be unlikely at best, the fact that the accounts communicate with each other (i.e. here), have very different styles of writing, and different editing times all indicates that they are unlikely to be related. Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 18:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)