Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Durzatwink

User:Durzatwink

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets

contribs STYROFOAM☭1994 TALK 02:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Report submission by

His edits are all in the same area of interest, are somewhat biased in favor of what he is writing about, and all of their styles of talking are very similar, as in here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. I also know that all of the previous persons mentioned have been blocked and linked to User:Rws killer, as in here and here. Each of them have all been created a few days right after the previous identity was blocked indefinitely. (see the account creation log). Also see the previous user's sockpuppet file.
 * Evidence

Even though he has reformed a bit recently, he was intent on bringing me down before, and still is attempting to do that, as in here and other posts.
 * Comments


 * No I am not and you already made a sockpuppetry case against me but it was dissmissed. Please stop doing this. Thanks-- Durza Twink TALK 02:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, there is another case that is being done between Styrofoam1994, Sanjay517 and me here. May I also add that this user is trying to bring me down after I collected a sufficient amount of evidence for sockpuppetry against the user's friend user:Sanjay517. However, due to my good faith, I did not add the sockpuppet master and sockpuppet in the WP:SSP. Sincerely-- Durza Twink TALK 02:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This user was my adoptee. However, for some odd reasaon he is now accusing me of sockpuppetry. Styrofoam1994 also vandalized my user page and he tricked people by claiming that he was a wikipedia administrator. All evidence can be seen here, which is also the exact place that I asked for the administrator who gave him rollback rights to double check Styrofoam's contribs. I did not say that i wanted his rollback rights to be removed. I clearly stated for his profile to be double checked. In the end, he maintained his rollback rights due to the fact that it is not an ability that can bring mass destruction to wikipedia and I continued on my life warning vandals, reporting abusers and reverting pages. Best regards-- Durza Twink TALK 02:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Durzatwink, look. All you're doing is mudslinging that is irrelevant to this sockpuppet case. Please reconsider what you are thinking. contribs STYROFOAM☭1994 TALK 03:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * All of the supporting evidence helps back me up. It defends against your accusation that I am trying to topple you and how you have constantly attacked me from accusation of sockpuppetry to vandalism on my userpage. by User:Durzatwink


 * Seriously, you are trying to topple me personally. You constantly asked that guy about reconsidering my rollback rights so you were attempting to make him revoke my rights. contribs STYROFOAM☭1994 TALK 03:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have fought against vandalism and have tried my best to improve articles and for some reason, Styrofoam1994 attacks me with this sockpuppetry case. Please lets rebuild our friendship. I offerd you to be my adoptee again so we can continue making good edits to Wikipedia. Your Pal-- Durza Twink TALK 03:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, he suspiciously wrote "What can possibly be said about me?" on his user page, see here. contribs STYROFOAM☭1994 TALK 03:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything on this page that looks the slightest bit like evidence that Durzatwink is participating in any sockpuppetry. Maybe I missed it? --Coppertwig (talk) 03:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean in the comments page, or the evidence? So far, Durzatwink has been editing random pages so he would avoid detection that he is a sockpuppet. Also, I request checkuser on these sockpuppets. contribs STYROFOAM☭1994 TALK 13:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Earlier,, who created this report, was repeatedly deleting evidence that had been presented on this page by , even to the point of violating 3RR. I think the evidence has been restored. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

So far I have been editing pages and warning/reporting vandals to avoid detection? Truly this does not make any sense at all. Best regarsd-- Durza Twink TALK 15:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

After reading some of the discussion on User talk:Styrofoam1994 (and see also this archived version), this looks less like a legitimate sockpuppet report and more like an attempt to bring some form of offline drama onto Wikipedia. I agree with Coppertwig that there's no evidence of sockpuppetry. This report should be closed accordingly. —C.Fred (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Then what kind of evidence do I need? I've done the same thing for User:Nku pyrodragon's sockpuppet report, and he got banned accordingly. contribs STYROFOAM☭1994 TALK 16:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the one edit of Durzatwink's that you presented neither matched the style of the other edits nor was disruptive at all. So edit diffs would be a definite place to start. —C.Fred (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a limit as to how many cases of sockpuppetry a user can file against another user? So far this is the second case Styrofoam1994 filed against me regarding sockpuppetry and I have a feeling that the user may file another one. Thanks-- Durza Twink TALK 17:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

No edits provide any technical proof of sockpuppetry. Requests for further details from the reporter led to even more specious diffs, such as a self-reversion to undo an edit the alleged sockpuppeteer did in his own account. Closing with a finding of not a sockpuppeteer. —C.Fred (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)