This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mbz1 (talk | contribs) at 18:03, 23 December 2010 (←Created page with '{{subst:SPI report |checkuser=no <!-- Please do not enter anything in the subject/headline box! If you want to request checkuser, simply change the line above this...'). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:03, 23 December 2010 by Mbz1 (talk | contribs) (←Created page with '{{subst:SPI report |checkuser=no <!-- Please do not enter anything in the subject/headline box! If you want to request checkuser, simply change the line above this...')(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
– This SPI case is open.
Daedalus969
Daedalus969 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Daedalus969/Archive.
23 December 2010
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Demiurge1000 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.
Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"
First time I have heard about user:Demiurge1000 (the account was created less than a 6 months ago) was today, when the user has suggested blocking me for absolutely nothing. The the user went canvasing. I run wikistalk on the users. Here's what I got IMO the post on AN/I, requesting blocking me on a more than unwarranted accusation, canvasing and wiki stalk report are enough evidence to run SPI Mbz1 (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2010 (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
Categories: