Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ProEdits/Archive

Evidence submitted by Radiantenergy

 * User:ProEdits aka Robert Priddy removed this source repeatedly here as it mentions his name - ,

, , , . Used Sock User:Hedmstr1 to remove the same source here again and again , , .
 * Both the accounts shares same edit and behavioural patterns and even sharing same views and comments. . In this edit Hedmstr1 says “There was a supreme Court Petition in India in 2002” which was earlier mentioned by the Sock master here “Besides, Sathya Sai Baba was charged with sexual abuse, in 2002 a petition was made to the Supreme Court of India .. .ProEdits (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is clearly a case of a single person using more than one account to advocate his position and to repeatedly disrupt the article. I request for Check User. Radiantenergy (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

CheckUser requests
Requested by Radiantenergy (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * - Pretty thin evidence above, but there has been some other allegations of sockpuppetry (see User_talk:sbs108) in the Sathya Sai Baba area - which is subject to ArbCom restrictions following on from the SSB arbitration case (where User:SSS108 was banned). Endorsed for CU under the extra leeway granted CUs in arbitration enforcement. Nathan  T 19:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Still looking into more detail, but I can tell you right now the two users listed above are ❌ - they're quite literally on opposite sides of the globe. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 06:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No sockpuppetry here, so far as I can tell. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 06:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions
No action taken. Not enough convincing behavioral evidence plus negative technical evidence equals no connection between the two users. MuZemike 01:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)