Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/MiltonP Ottawa (2nd)

User:MiltonP Ottawa (2nd)

Suspected sock puppeteer

MiltonP Ottawa (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets

Aurush kazemini (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Report submission by

TastyCakes (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

MiltonP Ottawa was recently blocked for sock puppetry and general obnoxiousness (previous sock stuff here). It seems to me that User:Aurush kazemini is another sock of Milton. As his apparent buddy SmashTheState threatened here, Aurush is going through many of the articles I've edited in the past few months and nominating them for deletion [1], [2],[3], adding obnoxious or insulting descriptions to minor edits of pages [4] or just being a dick. I think on some of these articles he has a point, they are valid candidates for deletion, but it's pretty annoying that he's gone and made an account for the express purpose of screwing with articles I edit. Incidentally, the reason I don't think it's SmashTheState doing this is Aurush's edit [here], as Milton was a frequent editor of this article and others like it. TastyCakes (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, please note the only edits Aurush has made with the exception of his own user page and "List of Full House characters", have been to pages I have edited over the past few months. TastyCakes (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Aurush has been notified. I note that he is holding up a 'please block me' sign. None of the AfDs has been correctly logged. Here is his deletion comment for List of high schools in Alberta:

Delete. Collection of pointless information. Gawd, who cares LOL Aurush kazemini (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that Aurush should be blocked indef for disruption, and the improperly entered and POINTy AfDs should simply be deleted. We could do this even without figuring out who he is a sock of. EdJohnston (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have it on good authority that it's not Milton, but some friend of Milton's. Not that it really matters. But I thought you might like to know, so you can avoid that whole "conspiracy theory" and "arch nemesis" trap some Wiki-cops are so fond of falling into. --Nik (talk) 12:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. EdJohnston (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FINISH HIM! —Drvoke (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions