Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Williamwells

Williamwells

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

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

Report date October 15 2009, 03:26 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Evidence submitted by User:Williamwells (User talk:Williamwells)

I have been a wikipedia member for many years, and this is crap. Zero evidence went into this accusation and instead of responding to my attempt to make a legitimate entry in wikipedia about a subject already referenced in another entry (hornfans.com) to our community of thousands of members, this user instead resorted to an accusation to make me respond to this rather than spend ANY time researching the subject. www.shaggybevo.com is a community of thousands of users, and as a legitimate entity is entitiled to be allowed to make a simple reference to its own existence.

Refer to my own history of legitimate entries, edits and similar activities spanning many years here at wikipedia. I am a physician, a member of the faculty at the University of Oklahoma, and a contributor to legitimiate scientific research. You may contact me through the university if you doubt my existence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamwells (talk • contribs) 04:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence submitted by Hell In A Bucket (talk)

writing the same bull article. Shaggybevo Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties See Defending yourself against claims.

Absurd. I know it says not to take this personally, but I did nothing to warrant this. I feel attacked, and it is unjustified.

Comments by other users

Not socks http://www.shaggybevo.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=48900 Corpx (talk) 07:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific in what you're saying? I'm not seeing the connection in that Internet forum. MuZemike 18:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two users admit that they're responsible for the streak of vandalism Corpx (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser requests

{{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 –

Declined, the reason can be found below. Requested by Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk declined – Per above, it looks more like meatpuppetry than outright socking. Now if the accounts start to get disruptive in the AFD, then that would be a cause of concern. However, nothing here sockwise warrants even blocking at this time. MuZemike 20:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Conclusions

Clerk note: No action taken as it looks like meatpuppetry to me as opposed to socking. MuZemike 22:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It will shortly be archived automatically.

{{SPIclose}} is deprecated. Please change the parameter in the {{SPI case status}} to "close" instead.