Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Llamadog903


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

Llamadog903

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets

- Diligent Terrier  (and friends) 20:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Report submission by


 * Evidence
 * Eatpeaches, an editor with very few edits supports Llamadog903's RfA
 * The accounts were created two days apart from each other.
 * During the RfA Llamadog903 is inactive during the time Eatpeaches is making the edits.

I don't understand, how could I be suspected of being Llamadog903 just because I voted on his RFA. Eatpeaches (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * I'm sorry, but I find this evidence tenuous at best.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 21:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) This seems like a pretty tenuous connection, DT. Eatpeaches is no doubt an SPA, probably a fellow sock of User:Ryulxng, who also trolled RFAs earlier today. Llama has not edited since 13:21 and eatpeaches didn't become active today until 16:35. – xeno cidic  ( talk ) 21:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I agree with Diligent Terrier. The evidence he has put out, including the fact that both accounts were created within 2 days of each other, and the fact that Eatpeaches only !voted in Llamadog903's RFA, and none of the other RFA's out there today is quite an eye raiser, But yet Xenocidic also raises a good point too. America69 (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with Wisdom here; this evidence seems very circumstantial. Eatpeaches does not seem to edit any of the same areas that Llamadog does. There's a tool that compares two editors and lists any pages they have in common; however, I can't remember it at the moment. Anyone know? Glass  Cobra  21:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Llama's account was created in 2006 and there's never been any suspicion of impropriety from him, as far as I know. DT, I'd strongly suggest you withdraw this because it is tainting a candidate currently at RFA with extremely threadbare evidence. – xeno cidic  ( talk ) 21:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * - Diligent Terrier  (and friends) 21:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Before this closes, I'd like to bring to everyone's attention quickly that Eatpeaches may be related to the Kate McAuliffe name vandal. I'm not 100% familiar with the exact details, though I do know a whole slew of usernames were created involving this person. Anyone more knowledgeable that may be able to help? Glass  Cobra  21:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with the details, either. I'm about to go offline, but I ask that an administrator close this case as soon as all questions have been answered, and we are sure there is no sock puppetry going on here.  I'll admit this was a pretty bad call given the evidence provided, I guess I thought I had more evidence than I did.  I'm very sorry :(  - Diligent  Terrier  (and friends) 21:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This link indicates the account was indeed created in January by a person who had the Kate M. person in his name, has that vandalism been ongoing? – xeno cidic  ( talk ) 22:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

A momentary lapse of reason by the filing party. It's fairly clear that these two individuals are not the same person. While further investigation into may be in order, this case is closed to avoid any damage to Llamadog903's reputation. – xeno cidic  ( talk ) 22:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * Case withdrawn by reporter; no users blocked. - Diligent  Terrier  (and friends) 21:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Eatpeaches/Kate McAuliffe connection will be discussed elsewhere. Glass  Cobra  22:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Link to new discussion regarding the above: User talk:Xenocidic. - Diligent  Terrier  (and friends) 23:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)