Misplaced Pages

:Sockpuppet investigations/Scramblecase - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Transity (talk | contribs) at 12:16, 17 April 2009 (→Report date April 17 2009, 08:24 (UTC): let me know how I can assist). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 12:16, 17 April 2009 by Transity (talk | contribs) (→Report date April 17 2009, 08:24 (UTC): let me know how I can assist)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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


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.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions


Category: