| Revision as of 03:07, 8 April 2011 editHelloAnnyong (talk | contribs)Administrators42,958 edits endorse← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:10, 8 April 2011 edit undoDominic (talk | contribs)Administrators29,558 edits some results and commentNext edit → | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
| <!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. --> | <!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. --> | ||
| **Checkuser does not ever disprove sock puppetry. The "unrelated" tag is a misnomer. It should say "no technical evidence". ] <sup>]</sup> 19:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC) | **Checkuser does not ever disprove sock puppetry. The "unrelated" tag is a misnomer. It should say "no technical evidence". ] <sup>]</sup> 19:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ***It is true that "confirmed" and "unrelated" refer only to the strength of the IP-related evidence, and not the actual claim of sockpuppetry. By the same token, though, it is wrong to say that "unrelated" means there is no technical evidence. We have an "inconclusive" tag for that. An "unrelated" determination means that the evidence indicates that the accounts are not the same; simplified, the IPs are unrelated. There might be other overriding confirming evidence not involving the IPs, just as in a confirmed case, there might be disconfirming non-technical evidence, but that doesn't mean that there is a lack of technical evidence. ]·] 06:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *I think something is going on here. Endorsing for clarification. — ] <sup>]</sup> 03:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC) | *I think something is going on here. Endorsing for clarification. — ] <sup>]</sup> 03:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC) | ||
| {{confirmed}} that ] is the currently-blocked ]. Also {{confirmed}} ] is the topic-banned ]. ]·] 06:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | ---- | ||
Revision as of 06:10, 8 April 2011
Meowy
Meowy (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected
For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Meowy/Archive.
– An SPI clerk has endorsed a request for CheckUser. A checkuser will shortly review the case.
07 April 2011
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Vidovler (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Monte Melkonian (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Sarmatai (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Mov25 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- 76.237.11.246 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
- 76.238.245.230 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
- 75.51.167.26 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
- 76.232.254.8 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"
All these people came to edit when one discussion and undoing reverts began on Tsitsernavank Monastery, Gandzasar monastery and Karabakh Khanate, Monte Melkonian. I have studied contributions of Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Meowy/Archive and Scribble^3. Just look at the articles Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Meowy/Archive, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Hetoum I/Archive and how many times these two people used puppet users, specially when they were blocked by administrative users. The contributions of blocked people look the same with the users I am reporting to you. Can you check please? Dighapet (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
- Comment - Vidovler (talk · contribs) and Monte Melkonian (talk · contribs) are checkuser confirmed to be unrelated to each other: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Aram-van, at least technically. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Checkuser does not ever disprove sock puppetry. The "unrelated" tag is a misnomer. It should say "no technical evidence". Jehochman 19:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- It is true that "confirmed" and "unrelated" refer only to the strength of the IP-related evidence, and not the actual claim of sockpuppetry. By the same token, though, it is wrong to say that "unrelated" means there is no technical evidence. We have an "inconclusive" tag for that. An "unrelated" determination means that the evidence indicates that the accounts are not the same; simplified, the IPs are unrelated. There might be other overriding confirming evidence not involving the IPs, just as in a confirmed case, there might be disconfirming non-technical evidence, but that doesn't mean that there is a lack of technical evidence. Dominic·t 06:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Checkuser does not ever disprove sock puppetry. The "unrelated" tag is a misnomer. It should say "no technical evidence". Jehochman 19:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- I think something is going on here. Endorsing for clarification. — HelloAnnyong 03:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed that Mov25 is the currently-blocked MosMusy. Also Confirmed Sarmatai is the topic-banned Xebulon. Dominic·t 06:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Categories: