Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WilyD/Archive

Report date April 6 2009, 15:09 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by BlueSquadronRaven

Hilary T's account was created on 25 March 2009 (less than two weeks ago as of the time of this investigation being requested). The account's first edit was to oppose an AFD in a rude manner. Since then, the vast majority of edits by this account have been in AfD's relating to articles of nation-nation relations. In every instance where WilyD has opposed deletion of such an article, Hilary T has as well, usually with vehement agreement with WilyD and adding to personal attacks against certain users in the discussions, particularly Biruitorul, who was the subject of the account's first edit.  -- BlueSquadron Raven  15:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
 * Instructions say when you're suspicious that an admin is sockpuppetting, you should email ArbCom or the checkuser list to avoid arousing my suspicions. Doesn't matter much, since I edit from a fixed IP from ~9 to ~5 Monday-Friday Eastern, it'll come back unrelated, not even the "possible" you're probably hoping for.  I suppose this is a good pre-emptive strike to prevent any comparable enquiry about the handful of accounts pursuing identical, bizarre agendas.  Wily D  16:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * C'mon, somebody checkuser me already. The wa-a-aiting is the hardest part. Wily D  19:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sort of unlikely - this report was filed without requesting checkuser. Avruch  T 20:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * The modus operandi of Hilary T is reminiscent of Plumoyr/Grubani with his passion for the creation of content-free bilateral relations articles. As far as I can see, WilyD's sole "offence" here is his recognition that whilst the vast majority of such articles are pointless articles that will never have any content, some are marginally notable, and might be worth keeping. Whilst one might argue where the line of notability ought to be drawn, shouting sock just because somebody appears to be in a minority, and because a fellow member of the minority has been unpleasant is a spectacular failure to assume good faith We don't do CU on request to clear people, and in any case it is unnecessary here. Mayalld (talk) 07:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

no evidence of socking. Mayalld (talk) 07:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 07:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions