| Revision as of 04:48, 7 December 2007 editVivio Testarossa (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers17,856 edits →User:Nrcprm2026← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:19, 7 December 2007 edit undoRlevse (talk | contribs)93,195 edits →User:Nrcprm2026: closingNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{sspa}} | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| ;Suspected sockpuppeteer | ;Suspected sockpuppeteer | ||
| Line 33: | Line 34: | ||
| :Only ] have access to nonpublic data such as ] of logged in users. <font color="green">]</font></font> <sup>(], ])</sup> 04:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC) | :Only ] have access to nonpublic data such as ] of logged in users. <font color="green">]</font></font> <sup>(], ])</sup> 04:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ;Conclusions | ;Conclusions | ||
| Blocked. Similar edits to same section of same article as Squee23, appearing after he was blocked, and Squee23 is a sock of banned Nrcprm2026. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 14:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | ---- | ||
Revision as of 14:19, 7 December 2007
- 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:Nrcprm2026
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Nrcprm2026 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
C.Furtwangler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Foofighter20x (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Evidence
Continually reverts my edits on the page General Welfare Clause, even when content is related to the article and a well known and referenced work concerning the topic.
Also, user seems to be very adamant about continually replacing a passage concerning the Articles of Confederation in an article about a clause of the Constitution of the United States. This is objectionable due to the simple fact that the Constitution vacated and replaced the Articles; as such, the latter has no legal bearing upon the interpretation and application of the former in case law, nor any relevance to the article.
In respect to the evidence immediately above, user is adamant about replacing a passage that was authored by a proven sockpuppet and banned user (Squee23--who was banned and later returned as EthanP2, again banned and now appears to have come back as C.Furtwangler).
The user seems only to have begun contributing AFTER the other accounts were banned.
Also, just noticed this today, but the username of the accused sockpuppet is derived from one of the references listed on the page. Foofighter20x (talk) 03:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comments
I don't know enough about computers to look at IP adresses/logs or how to even produce such logs in order to determine if this guy is coming from the same IP prefix. The other evidence should stand to scrutiny, however, I believe. Foofighter20x (talk) 09:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Only certain users have access to nonpublic data such as IP address of logged in users. VivioFateFan 04:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Conclusions
Blocked. Similar edits to same section of same article as Squee23, appearing after he was blocked, and Squee23 is a sock of banned Nrcprm2026. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)