Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Strikeout Sister

Strikeout Sister

• Strikeout Sister (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• D: (possible vote stacking)

• Supporting evidence: This user recently voted on a request for adminship, with a controversial viewpoint. I ended up discussing the vote with this user here, but it soon turned into an argument, and in the end the user reported me to the admin noticeboard for alleged personal attacks. The thread has since developed, and it is agreed I did not make any personal attacks. Strikeout Sister then announced he or she has "no wish to stay here" and subsequently blanked his or her userpage and talk page.

I decided to look into the history of this user following this bizarre behaviour. I expected to see a longer history, but this user registered on 5th August, just less than 3 weeks ago. Their fourth edit was installing Twinkle, and used edit summaries etc from the start. Basically I think this user is a sockpuppet of someone. Perhaps a bad hand account, but I find the pattern of edits highly suspicious. Hardly any editors find RfA so fast in their wiki-career, nor do they know of noticeboards, policies as fast as this user. The fact they installed Twinkle on their fourth edit was the icing on the cake for me. There's no way a brand new editor would know about Twinkle on their first day. Majorly ^talk 05:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Defense I never expected that being the spouse of an experienced (and helpful) WP editor would cause me problems like this. So for the record: yes, of course a brand new editor wouldn't install Twinkle. Not without help, anyway. Vote stacking? Never. Sock puppet? Not. Fed up with WP after just 3 weeks? Very much so. I'm being shot down with false accusations and that's something I really don't like. I am allowed to feel that way, am I? Goodbye, thanks.    SIS  10:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)