Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yourbasis101/Archive

Yourbasis101

Yourbasis101 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Report date November 26 2009, 00:30 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

Takenabbyrocksdailyabove (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Thecrew2008 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
142.162.19.85 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

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

Evidence submitted by Newfiechick88

It appears all of these four accounts could be the same. All of them have edited the NewFoundSpecFic article in the last week to either vandalise or vote to delete the article, and all share similarities. Both Yourbasis101 and takenabbyrocksdailyaabove both registered on the same day to vote for the same thing to be deleted. As well, the former two usernames and the user at IP 142.162.19.85 all edited the NewFoundSpecFic talk page in the same fashion, and share many similarities. As well, Yourbasis101 referenced Kenneth Tam in his about, a unknown Canadian author who Thecrew2008 has been linked to in the past. Is there a possible relation to these four users who intend on giving a bias vote to the deletion of the NewFoundSpecFic article?

Thanks,

--Newfiechick88 (talk) 00:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Checkuser request – code letter: C (Vote stacking affecting outcome )

Current status –

Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.

Self-endorsing for CU attention here. [1] gives me reason to believe that this may be more meatpuppetry/deletion canvassing as opposed to outright socking. In addition, some of the accounts edit some different articles, so the behavioral evidence isn't convincing for me to issue blocks. I think a check could tell us more about what's going on here. MuZemike 03:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Confirmed for the initially listed as well as the two others I added above. --Versa geek 05:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked by me, tagged by another clerk. I have left the IP unblocked as it has not edited in a few days. Tiptoety ^talk 06:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.