Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sm565


 * Y'all might apologize to Sm565. Whig 23:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe they're just friends. Apparently Sm565 knows homeopaths from Greece. diff Tim Vickers 00:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe, except the IP of the unknown user was from New York, no? Whig 03:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Whig, uh, no. A failed RfCU is not evidence that sockpuppets do not exist. See WDM's comments below.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 00:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Or the same individual using a different computer at a different location. I think that the "unrelated" template isn't necessarily correct, since simply not having related IP's or proxies doesn't mean that the two editors are actually "unrelated". A better conclusion is that no evidence exists proving that they are indeed related.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 00:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There is circumstantial evidence of a sockpuppet. I remember a recent case where an admin was using a sockpuppet to get themselves to be an admin.  The puppet and puppeteer were at two different IP's--it appears that when they travelled on business, it would use the puppet.  That case required extensive documentation, which I don't see here.  When I make a sockpuppet charge I do the case first, and the RfCU later.  I have had socks banned even without the confirming RfCU, because smart people can hide their IP's.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 00:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he is someone like the users who appear only to revert edits. Who knows?--Sm565 02:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's clarify this. Do you deny using a sockpuppet, or knowing the recent user identified as Naftilos? Whig 02:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to talk to my lawyer before I make my final statement. --Sm565 04:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is absurd. Whig 05:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)