Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Codedon/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Codedon


Report date April 9 2010, 02:10 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by  – iridescent

This one's already been indefblocked for trolling, but I think it's very unlikely to be a new user; there may be genuine new users who go from this to this in a week, but it's stretching AGF to the limit. Normally, I'd consider a combination of bulk copyediting with maintenance tagging, and within a week of arriving going to User talk:Malleus Fatuorum and trying to start an argument, as being prima facie evidence of a Mattisse account, with an outside chance of it being Horsey/Ecoleetage/Pastor Theo; the only doubt is that this doesn't seem either of their style. I'm certain enough that this will turn out to be one of our long-term abusers evading a ban that I think it warrants a RFCU to flush out the probable accompanying sockfarm.  – iridescent 02:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

Contribs show targeted editing against articles created by User:Mono. Review at ER is quick to accuse (although some points may be valid, I doubt anyone purposely misspells names to spite others). I was suspecting Mattisse, who still continues to hound and harass other users. Diff by Iridescent above shows experienced editing, as well as this edit.  fetchcomms☛ 02:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by  – iridescent 02:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed to see if we can find a sockmaster here. Tim Song (talk) 03:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
18 May 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by moɳo

User posted a warning on my talkpage, removed comments, citing WP:MYSPACE. That issue aside, a user with 13 edits (who hadn't been welcomed with a template) citing a semi-known policy (not core) seems rather suspicious. It is possible that the user read over all the policies, however, it is odd that he found me and singled me out. We must WP:AGF as this may be perfectly innocent, however, I would like a second opinion and/or check. Please note a previous dispute (possibly related) with Codedon regarding trolling (see here and here). Thank you. moɳo 00:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

This is pretty ridiculous. First off, I'm not Indian. That's far from the truth. Second, I wouldn't go so far to disparage myself just to get unblocked. If people don't want me here, I'll simply leave and never come back. If people don't appreciate my edits, so be it. I wouldn't call myself a "big fucking dick". Lawlar (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

OK. I notice this has not been investigated yet. IMO, there is no connection between Lawler and Codedon or any other registered user. Lawler most likely edited as an IP and indeed has said as much on his/her talkpage. No need to pursue this. No WP:DUCKs here: just a very committed and thoughtful editor who made an honest mistake --Jubilee♫clipman 23:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I noticed Lawlar earlier, and I did briefly consider a relation to Codedon. But his language, tone, and seemingly more-clueful-than-most-noobs attitude is most intriguing... In the end, I don't think a CU is really needed at this time. I'd reverse that opinion if some similar trolling or other behavior occurs, of course. —fetch·comms 23:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by moɳo 00:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk declined – there not enough behavioral evidence to consider, and I think several others seem to agree that Lawlar is not a sock of anyone. –MuZemike 00:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Closing as no action, per MuZemike. Tim Song (talk) 01:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Codedon/Archive&oldid=1138668798"