Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stanwriter/Archive

Evidence submitted by Ecw.technoid.dweeb
See history of BaseKit: at User_talk:Stanwriter, the user was notified of a speedy deletion of BaseKit. BaseKit was then deleted. User:Lexusperplexus then recreated BaseKit. This seems to be rather cotton-filled. (This is the first time I've made an SPI, so I apologise if I've made mistakes...)Cheers!☮ —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk | If you reply somewhere other than my talk, please leave me a talkback template. 12:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * Administrator comments. I stumbled onto the BaseKit article via a search for contributions by new editors. Looking deeper into the article history, I note the following:
 * Stanwriter created a (much spammier, at first gloss) version of BaseKit on 4 February.
 * Lexusperplexus created the improved version on 9 March, making edits from 12:26 to 12:28 UTC.
 * Stanwriter then edited the article from 12:34 to 14:05.
 * Lexuswriter resumed editing the article at 14:13, with no other edits made by this user during the time window.
 * On the one hand, this pattern does not support the notion that the users are two separate people.
 * However, what have they done abusively to the article? I do not see opinion-stacking or avoidance of a potential block taking place here. IMO, there's not enough going on here to warrant a checkuser, though I will continue to monitor the article. —C.Fred (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have also advised Lexusperplexus more on what the multiple-account rules are and opened a dialogue with him on his talk page (diff). —C.Fred (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see where any abusive behaviour by the two accounts acting in concert has taken place. Lexusperplexus has indicated that he and Stanwriter are coworkers and edit from the same IP (probably a company gateway). Lexusperplexus has been educated, and I'll leave an equivalent message on Stanwriter's talk page. No further actions appear necessary at this time. —C.Fred (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Conclusions