Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tomtom9041/Archive

Report date January 27 2009, 00:34 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets:


 * Evidence submitted by Falastine fee Qalby (talk)

Tomtom denies that he and Tomtom are the same user even though they have similar names and posting pattern, including the constant removal of images he claimed were not free. Tomtom9041 was told on several occasions on the article talk page and on his talk page that the images were under an accepted license (CC-BY-SA). But he kept removing them. He removed them from the tomtom account as well. When asked if he and tomtom were the same user, he denied it. He is still deleting the images from both accounts without stating his reasons and participating in the discussions. These are not all of the diffs, please let me know if more are required. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This just in, Tomtom edits Tomtom9041's user page. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That's all you have, similar name and MO, here in the US we call that Circumstantial evidenceand conjecture. Again I am not a Brazilian American female, as you can tell viz-a- viz my pic on my user page. You do go on.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
 * The Tomtom user page was blank when I had first accused you of sock puppetry. I like the Thomasina touch. If we were going to compare user pages including userboxes, then it should be noted that you both share an interest in ancient Egypt, interest in ancient civilizations, claim to stop people who have an agenda, find POV in the mainspace annoying, advocate good grammar usage, believe that majority doesn't equal right, and you both measure your wikistress level which is at "just fine." If this isn't sockpuppetry, then it is impersonation. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users

Mayalld (talk) 07:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC) (self endorsed by clerk adding request) Looks very WP:DUCKish, with a lot of after-the-fact "evidence" added to disprove the allegation. CU required to cut through the confusion. Mayalld (talk) 07:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)]
 * CheckUser requests

- can we close this? Clerks please check that all is done. Ã¢ÂÂÃ¢ÂÂ  nix eagle email me 18:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Conclusions

✅

-- Avi (talk) 18:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Tiptoety talk 00:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)