Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rarecpus

User:Rarecpus

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets

—Largo Plazo (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Report submission by

User Rarecpus has previously indicated his opposition to deletion of the article that he wrote, Rare CPUs, which is currently under AfD, and had twice removed speedy deletion notice from the article. (An admin rejected the speedy deletion and replaced it with a PROD.) Within the last 12 hours, IP user 24.61.179.119 has removed the AfD notice from the article three times and blanked the discussion page once. (These are the only recorded actions from this IP address.) Just now Rarecpus vandalized the template (by adding a spurious letter to the name of the month) and added the comment underneath the notice, "Stop being a sore loser, this is a reputable hobby and I am not advertising anything. None of those sites have anything to sell. Find something else to delete and waste your own time." It seems reasonable to suppose that this comment (which I removed and for which I warned Rarecpus for talking on an article page) is part of the same concerted effort as the attempts to undermine the AfD, and that Rarecpus may have deleted the notice without logging in because he had learned that in the case of the speedy deletion notice, an author isn't allowed to remove a notice from a page he wrote, and was attempting a subterfuge to get around that. (He may not understand that an AfD notice, unlike a speedy notice, can't be removed by anyone but an administrator acting in accordance with the AfD process.)
 * Evidence


 * Comments

Can we figure this out with a simple IP check? —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Although I think it would still be nice to know, I no longer need to equate the two users to establish improper behavior by Rarecpus because he has now committed an AfD template deletion under his registered name (besides racking up enough other offenses to get himself blocked). —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It's so obvious that a Checkuser isn't necessary (IMHO). If either the account or the IP resumes the same behavior upon expiration of the block, I'd just block the named account indef and the IP for a week or so. --barneca (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions