Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemc87: Difference between revisions
restore Tim's endorse |
|||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
======<span style="font-size:150%"> Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments </span>====== |
======<span style="font-size:150%"> Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments </span>====== |
||
{{RFCU| |
{{RFCU| F | No2ndletter | Endorse }} <small>Requested by [[User:BigHappyHarry|BigHappyHarry]] ([[User talk:BigHappyHarry|talk]]) 22:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC) </small> |
||
<!--## Replace CODE LETTER by the appropriate code letter and Replace No2ndLetter if you need a 2nd code letter (or leave it alone if not) ##--> |
<!--## Replace CODE LETTER by the appropriate code letter and Replace No2ndLetter if you need a 2nd code letter (or leave it alone if not) ##--> |
||
<!--## Codeletters are: |
<!--## Codeletters are: |
||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
F - Other, please explain why a check should be run --> |
F - Other, please explain why a check should be run --> |
||
<!--## Make sure your evidence explains why CheckUser is appropriate ##--> |
<!--## Make sure your evidence explains why CheckUser is appropriate ##--> |
||
{{Endorse}} to check on the filer - {{checkuser|BigHappyHarry}}. Something doesn't seem right here per Rhomb's note. As to the named accounts and IPs, I'm not sure there's enough basis to run a check. The IPs geolocate to different locations and belong to different ISPs, so they are unlikely to be the same user. To the extent there is votestacking by the named accounts and IPs except {{user|Filmcom}}, it is unlikely to affect the AfD's outcome either way, and in any event the diversity of the IPs suggests that meatpuppetry is more likely, in which case CU is going to be of limited value. [[User:Timotheus Canens|Timotheus Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens|talk]]) 08:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
---- |
||
Revision as of 19:34, 15 January 2010
Mikemc87
- Mikemc87 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date January 14 2010, 22:54 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
- Mikemc87 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Fortunes4 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Filmcom (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Evidence submitted by BigHappyHarry
I have a whole bucket of SPAs fresh from the oven. BigHappyHarry (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yours? Or someone elses? You left this open ended. Syn 19:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users
The complaint here would be of !vote-stacking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tracy Goode and that looks quite plausible. (It would help to be explicit about the abuse complained of at SPI.) However, Filmcom (talk · contribs) is hardly an SPA having been contributing for some four years now.
It is curious that complainant BigHappyHarry (talk · contribs) has been contributing for just one day and this case is apparently his second ever contribution. Something to be explained here? Rhomb (talk) 07:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, and it's also suspicious that he knows the speedy deletion template as well. --Bsadowski1 07:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
{{RFCU}} is deprecated. Please change the case status parameter in {{SPI case status}} to "CURequest" instead.
- Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
- Current status –
Endorsed for Checkuser attention. Requested by BigHappyHarry (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Clerk endorsed to check on the filer - BigHappyHarry (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Something doesn't seem right here per Rhomb's note. As to the named accounts and IPs, I'm not sure there's enough basis to run a check. The IPs geolocate to different locations and belong to different ISPs, so they are unlikely to be the same user. To the extent there is votestacking by the named accounts and IPs except Filmcom (talk · contribs), it is unlikely to affect the AfD's outcome either way, and in any event the diversity of the IPs suggests that meatpuppetry is more likely, in which case CU is going to be of limited value. Timotheus Canens (talk) 08:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)