Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sevencraft/Archive

Report date March 28 2009, 06:30 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Original account blocked for multiple users. LifetimeSkrilla is either a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. Edits around recently created promotional YNOT related articles including articles about Peter Zed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Morbidthoughts (talk)

Also see this article on YNOT by Peter Zed about using wikipedia for their own purposes. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * From the YNOT article and his contributions, blocked user, sevencraft, is Peter Zed. LifetimeSkrill's diffs,, also suggest he may be Peter Zed.Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Evidence against LaserVaZer. Posted a link to a blog with a personal attack against another wikipedia editor. The blog belongs to Peter Zed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users
 * I have added User:LaserVaZer to the request; that user's recent message on my talk page made me wonder if he was the the same user. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested by Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Morbidthoughts, you have used code letter E F, meaning other reason. Please provide a good 'other reason ' that a checkuser should be performed, backing up your reason with diffs and other evidence if you can. Thankyou. Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 04:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I used E. What other evidence is needed for that? Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Some examples of what specific behaviors suggest a relationship; could behavioral evidence alone not meet the duck clause? Anything other reasons that this situation would warrant a checkuser. (And sorry about messing up the code letter). Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 08:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * After looking at some of the diffs, I believe LifetimeSkrilla does meet the duck clause. I don't know about LaserVaZer since that was submitted by another user. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Per above comments, behavioral evidence will most likely be enough. Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 10:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Having been blocked for a role account, it is entirely proper to return under a new identity. Whilst there may well be issues with this user, this isn't a violation of WP:SOCK Mayalld (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Its pretty obvious that User:LifetimeSkrilla is Peter, however I aside from invading an indef ban for using a shared account... if this new one is the only account he is using then really we should not be chasing him off, rather educating him about what edits he may and may not make. Mind you remember that WP:COI is a guideline, not a policy. As far as the other account, I did not look into it very much as nobody put out much evidence for it. ——  nix eagle email me 03:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions