Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/ParalelUni


 * 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.

User:ParalelUni

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by Leuko 06:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Users listed appear to be sock puppets of User:ParalelUni, who was indefinitely banned by the Arbitration Committee for making grotesque personal attacks. These accounts all appear to be a fairly new single purpose account making the same sort of disruptive edits on Talk:St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine which were characteristic of User:ParalelUni and his many already confirmed/blocked socks. The language used is similar, as well as the multi-step editing, and the every other indentation on talk pages.
 * Evidence

Per the ArbCom decision SPA's only used to edit the article can be restrained. It appears that these are multiple ban-evading socks. Leuko 13:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments


 * You will notice that Leuko has already asked for this once before against User:67.177.149.119 at Requests_for_checkuser/Case/ParalelUni just a few months ago and it was decided they were unrelated and that User:ParalelUni was "Stale". Is it really appropriate to do it again for the same address just a few months later when one considers the intrusive nature of this probe? It is obvious that Leuko is doing this in order to harass User:67.177.149.119 and other users he disagrees with when discussing the editing of a particular article. Leuko appears to be using this process in an abusive and disruptive manner and he should not be allowed to continue to do so. He really has absolutely no evidence that warrants another use of this process or this investigation, especially in light of his last failed use of this process only a few months ago. If there really is any integrity to speak of with regard to the Wikimedia foundation you will not allow him to continue to abuse, harass, and intimidate other editors with this process. BritishDad 06:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, User:ParalelUni is probably stale because he has been indefblocked for quite some time now, meaning that the software would not have a recent IP address for him. As medical students (which ParalelUni was) frequently change locale from basic sciences to clinical rotations and during clinical rotations, CheckUser is not all that accurate and may be mislead in thinking that two accounts may be unrelated when in fact they are the same user.  I believe the similar style of editing is much more convincing.  But since it is apparent that these accounts are solely SPA meatpuppets, they can be regarded as a single individual per the ArbCom case "Users who have made little or no other contributions outside a single narrow article or topic may be treated as meatpuppets and regarded as a single individual. When it becomes clear that such accounts are only concerned with advocacy or other disruptive activity, they may be banned from their area of interest."  Requests_for_arbitration/St_Christopher  Finally, User:BritishDad's comment: "If there really is any integrity to speak of with regard to the Wikimedia foundation you will not allow him to continue to abuse, harass, and intimidate other editors with this process" is interesting as similar comments were what caused the Wikimedia Foundation to protect the article via WP:OFFICE. Leuko 13:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

All sockpuppets banned per Admin JzG. diff