Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ihgyqxfs/Archive

Ihgyqxfs

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

20 July 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Evidence submitted by TEK

I think this is a sock because of the user's familiarity with Wikipedia on first hour of edting. Even if you disagree, please use checkuser, just to make sure. TEK (talk • e-mail) 22:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Clerk declined – CheckUser is not for fishing. There needs to be something more substantive besides "this doesn't look like a new user" for us to endorse such a request. –MuZemike 23:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note Agreed, checkuser is not for fishing requests. TN X Man 23:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't there be more investigation than this? TEK (talk • e-mail) 00:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if this came off as abrupt. However, please note that checkuser is not for fishing. In order for a checkuser to be run, you need generally need another account to whom you can compare edits. Or, there needs to be credible evidence of socking - simple familiarity with Wikipedia guidelines and editing practices isn't enough. Finally, I see you have a case open at WP:AN3. I would recommend letting that finish - reporting someone when there is a case like that open doesn't reflect well, as appears you are out to get them (whether this is true or not). I hope this answers your questions and please let me know if there is anything else. TN X Man 00:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]