Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iamsaa: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:06, 16 March 2010

Iamsaa

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

Populated account categories: confirmed

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iamsaa/Archive.

Report date March 16 2010, 09:48 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Evidence submitted by Esowteric

Created within an hour of the creation of sock Newatwp (talk · contribs) who was indefinitely blocked on 15 March 2010 at AN/I. AN/I thread.

Only contribution thus far is to comment at the RS noticeboard about a "reliable souce" proposed by another sock: edit diff.

Final offer of help: Please note that Scientizzle (talk · contribs) has made a final offer of help to the sockmaster Iamsaa (talk · contribs), if he logs in with that account, agrees to abide by rules and is willing to discuss matters. See talk page offer.

Thanks, Esowteric+Talk 09:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: OK, I can see that Iamsaa is negotiating to be unblocked. See here. The accounts were created on the 12th, so this should not prejudice current negotiations. Esowteric+Talk 09:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm? He was also creating new accounts on the 14th; and as far as current negotiation is concerned, he's still claiming not to be (among others) User:Falconkhe. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know... *eye roll* I've asked point-blank about this account. I'd like to see a checkuser report on this account if there's a further denial. The "negotiation" is one last suuuuper long-shot to get through to this person and stop the disruption. We'll see... — Scientizzle 20:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually...can I assume, based on your block, jpgordon, that there was a check performed? The behavioral evidence is mind-numbingly obvious, so I was planning on blocking anyway. — Scientizzle 20:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just block, ignore and move on and continue to block all socks. Checkuser is no longer required, new accounts are quacking like ducks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm quite happy to keep running checks until he quits. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 ::Actually...can I assume, based on your block, jpgordon, that there was a check performed? The behavioral evidence is mind-numbingly obvious, so I was planning on blocking anyway. &mdash; [[User:Scientizzle|Scien]]''[[User talk:Scientizzle|tizzle]]'' 20:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 :::Just block, ignore  and move on and continue to block  all socks. Checkuser is no longer required, new accounts are quacking like ducks. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 20:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
+::::And I'm quite happy to keep running checks until he quits. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|::==( o )]]</small></sup> 21:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 ======<span style="font-size:150%"> Comments by accused parties </span>======