Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vryadly/Archive

Evidence submitted by User:Viriditas

 * Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring

Even though it is obvious that these two accounts (Vryadly and 89.176.112.74) are the same, I am requesting checkuser because these two accounts were edit warring on Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, an article that has been infested by sockpuppets and single-purpose accounts. I hope that checkuser may reveal the existence of more accounts used to disrupt this article. For a related, ongoing investigation, please see Sockpuppet_investigations/Drolz09. Viriditas (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: Minutes after being informed of this report, Vryadly has admitted to being 89.176.112.74. However, because both accounts were admittedly used to violate the 3RR on an article that has attracted disruptive editing, I respectfully request that a checkuser proceed. Viriditas (talk) 02:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Response to Luk: There is a whole lot of socking going on, but it is confined to the talk page.  You don't see any "blatant socking" in article space because the page is currently semi-protected. Recent SPA's include:


 * Please note, 71.125.130.14, MacheathWasABadBadMan, and 98.232.27.135 are all working together to try to change the name of the article. And the Jjmcdonald29 account was created a day after Vryadly's block to argue his case on the talk page.  In other words, there is lots of sock activity going on. Viriditas (talk) 10:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Second response to Luk: I do not think they are multiple people agreeing with each other.  In fact, I think I have demonstrated conclusively that 71.125.130.14 and 98.232.27.135 are the same editors.  I also think it is beyond obvious that Jjmcdonald29 and MacheathWasABadBadMan are sock puppets, and Jjmcdonald29 reminds me of Vryadly. Viriditas (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
No need for investigation. I was working from this IP without logging in, and in the middle of an edit I found out that the article had been made protected from unregistered editing. So I logged in to continue to add material to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vryadly (talk • contribs) 02:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * When a user says "no need to investigate", that's often a tipoff that an investigation is needed to see if he's got other socks. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser requests
Requested by Viriditas (talk) 02:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

– Given the history of the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident article, there is a valid concern that more socks may be at work here. –MuZemike 20:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * I have blocked for 3RR violation, and  is an admitted sock IP. However a checkuser may still be useful to detect if any other linked accounts exist, given that the article is a hotbed of disruptive editing. Abecedare (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * for a lack of evidence that other accounts are involved. I don't see anybody blatantly socking on that atticle in the last few days. -- Luk  talk 09:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked at the users editing the talk page, I don't think the results are significant one way or another. They could be multiple people agreeing with each other. -- Luk  talk 10:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions
If the block was already issued for the edit-warring, then I cannot see what else can be done here. –MuZemike 20:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)