Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Qst

User:Qst

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets

 Daniel  05:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Report submission by

Qst was in a heated dispute with Moreschi over Requests for adminship/Qst, which culminated in a flurry of messages, an ANI report, and Qst storming off in a huff (and requesting the deletion of all his/her userpages) for a couple of hours before deciding to come back.
 * Evidence

During this, an IP address (81.153.223.189) made this lovely addition to Moreschi's talk page, where the flurried activity was occuring. The IP was consequently blocked anon-only, and then requested this unblock, which is delightfully-worded also.

"And?", you may be saying. Well, one hour eariler, 81.153.223.189 made its' only other edit, to revert with an edit summary "revert, no concensus". This edit came out of the blue, as there had been no editing on this template in over 48 hours. Within an hour, 81.153.223.189's edit was reverted, to which Qst immediately re-reverted, with edit summary "There is no consensus for this". Qst was reverted, but Qst reverted straight back again.

So, was the IP merely trolling to have suspicion like this raised? No. Why? Because the IP edited it first, to revert back to Tellyaddict/Qst's favoured version. Rather than wondering what the IP was doing (as Qst would have done, if the IP wasn't his/her), Qst proceeded to re-revert back to the IP's version within moments of it being changed again. The IP proceeded the account, not the other way round - if it was the other way round, the "maybe the IP was trolling to get Qst in trouble" argument may have been on good grounds, but this isn't the case.

The final bit of evidence is the editing times. They never overlap, yet Qst is active both immediately before and immediately after the IP spree. Qst even denies having anything to do with the IP.

Another IP address,, which appears to be retired editor per this (update: confirmed), agrees with my suspicion.

I believe Qst should be blocked for at least a month for abusive, decietful sockpuppetry to show that we will not tolerate this kind of absured disruption, and to allow him/her to calm down and get over the fact that his/her RfA failed. We don't need any more trolling like this.  Daniel  05:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The report at WP:RFCU suggests that the IP was a Molag Bal sock. I have asked the checkuser, Mackensen to comment. Flyguy649 talk contribs 06:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * I have some albeit-behavioural evidence to link a confirmed Molag Bal sock (RV) to Qst, and will be compiling it over the next 24 hours.  Daniel  06:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

I agree that the evidence looks extremely damning. I am blocking the Qst account for a month. Any admin may review this action. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Naturally, I agree with this decision.  Daniel  06:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)