Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Scramblecase: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 08:24, 17 April 2009 editSPCUClerkbot (talk \| contribs)30,768 edits BOT updates, actions follow: (Removing unused default checkuser/checkip templates) (listing accounts notified)← Previous edit		Revision as of 12:16, 17 April 2009 edit undoTransity (talk \| contribs)Pending changes reviewers8,358 edits →Report date April 17 2009, 08:24 (UTC): let me know how I can assistNext edit →
Line 18:		Line 18:

	;Comments by accused parties    <small><span style="font-weight:normal">''See ].''</span></small>		;Comments by accused parties    <small><span style="font-weight:normal">''See ].''</span></small>
			* Please go right ahead - I have nothing at all to hide. Let me know how I can assist so we can get back to the WQA on ]. --'''<font color="800080">]''' <sup><small>(] • ])</small></sup></font> 12:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:16, 17 April 2009

Scramblecase

Scramblecase (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Report date April 17 2009, 08:24 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

Collect (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Transity (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Evidence submitted by neon white talk

This relates to a WQA Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts#User:Ratel submitted by User:Scramblecase. Although the editor denies being a sock of another editor and asserts he/she is brand new to wikipedia, initial edits demonstrate familiarity not only with policies and guidelines including some not so common ones such as WP:BURO, Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines and WP:SPA but also with the discussion and and WQA process (the editor even notfied the accused, something which 90% of experienced editors don't realise they should do). A particular phrase that jumps out as being strange from a new use is the references to SPAs such "please refrain from lobbing WP:SPA at me". I find it very unusual that a supposed new editor is ready to defend themselves from SPA accusations in their very first post. Considering that the editor has only made around six or seven edits, the 4th of which was to file a WQA report suggests to be this is not a new editor. I think it is necessary in order to progress with the WQA or mediation to establish whether this is a sock of an editor that has previous been involved in long term dispute with the 'accused' in the WQA. --neon white talk 08:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties See Defending yourself against claims.

Please go right ahead - I have nothing at all to hide. Let me know how I can assist so we can get back to the WQA on User:Ratel. --Transity 12:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)