Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leoesb1032
Leoesb1032
Leoesb1032 (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/Leoesb1032/Archive.
07 July 2013
– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Matthewb103 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
- Editor interaction utility
In the prior sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leoesb1032/Archive, user Leoesb1032 admitted to using account Matthewb103 as a sock-puppet. Now, at User talk:Leoesb1032#Former Sockpuppetry Confession, they are renouncing their prior confession, which they now claim to have felt intimidated into making. They then posted at User talk:Barek#Re-opening via IP 68.84.125.66 (now blocked) to post on my talk page to draw attention to their renouncing of their prior confession.
I brought this up at WP:ANI#User who previously admitted to sock-puppetry now renouncing their admission, where it was suggested that an SPI was necessary to review - either to substantiate their claim of not using socks, or to endorse the prior WP:DUCK closure. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
CheckUser requested - 
Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention - Per my comments at ANI. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Confirmed that Matthewb103 was a sock of Leoesb1032; they are Technically indistinguishable. No comment on the given IP. I do not agree with any further sanctions as is this is all rather retrospective. But Leoesb1032, I would remind you that your initial honesty is what got you blocked for just a week, and not longer or even indefinitely. There was nothing to be gained by going back on your word. WilliamH (talk) 08:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)- Thanks for the check. Closing. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)