Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thehewolf/Archive

Evidence submitted by Fæ
Both SPA accounts created Rehan Saeed, QUACK would seem to apply. Fæ (talk) 10:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

 * Could this report be fixed? I'm seeing no user contributions for either editor reported.  It's very hard for an outsider to analyze a case like this... Doc9871 (talk) 03:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Both have two deleted contribs. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 04:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you check their talk pages, you can see the associated user warnings for the deleted article. Fæ (talk) 06:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw those warnings. This provides no clear evidence, either.  Okay: what am I missing, here? Both talk page histories also contain zero listed contributions by either editor.  Diffs are needed...? Doc9871 (talk) 06:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. - Deleted edits aren't visible to non-admins. We can't see them: and yet this is not an excuse.  Admins aren't grown in a secret garden somewhere, but they rather 'evolve' from regular editors like ourselves.  This SPI needs visible evidence presented to all editors, and I see nothing so far to work with.  WP:DIFF can help here, methinks. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 08:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sometimes, sock puppetry cases can only be determined by way of deleted edits, i.e. only administrators have the ability to analyze the evidence given and make the call, which they need to anyways. –MuZemike 23:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
That having said what I just said above, I don't think there is enough to show socking. Single-purpose perhaps, but it is possible that you could have two separate people trying to promote the same person, which would make that more meatpuppetry than straight socking. In any case, neither account have edited in about 2 1/2 days, so they may be gone by now. –MuZemike 23:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)