note |
Doc Tropics (talk | contribs) →Comments by other users: may the accused respond? |
||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
<small>''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims|Defending yourself against claims]].''</small> |
<small>''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims|Defending yourself against claims]].''</small> |
||
[[User:Bless sins]] has [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bless_sins#Blocked requested] an opportunity to respond on this page but the current block prevents it. The editor has a potentially viable defense/explanation and the request to present it seems reasonable. Is there any way such an opportunity can be arranged? [[User:Doc Tropics|Doc ]] <font color ="green">[[User talk:Doc Tropics|Tropics]]</font > 02:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>====== |
======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>====== |
Revision as of 02:32, 6 January 2012
– A checkuser has completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.
Bless sins
- Bless sins (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:
05 January 2012
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Vice regent (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
Outed himself with this comment. The Vice regent account was created a few hours after the Bless sins account was blocked for edit-warring. The two accounts have edited over 180 pages in common, including some extremely rarely edited pages - for example, on this talk page, only three userids have ever commented, two of which are Bless sins and Vice regent, making essentially the identical comment three years apart. Also, although one might claim that any two editors interested in Islam might have these kinds of overlaps, some of the articles the accounts have both edited are extremely unlikely combinations - for example, 2005 Cronulla riots, Demographics of atheism, India, International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust, Justice and Development Party (Morocco), Piracy, Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878), Seawater Greenhouse, Utameshgaray of Kazan - many of these topics are both unrelated and obscure. Both accounts voted the same way here Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 7#Category:Islamophobia. It would be a good idea to see if there are other accounts involved. Jayjg (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
User:Bless sins has requested an opportunity to respond on this page but the current block prevents it. The editor has a potentially viable defense/explanation and the request to present it seems reasonable. Is there any way such an opportunity can be arranged? Doc Tropics 02:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Checkuser note: - User:Bless sins and User:Vice regent are
Confirmed as the same user. Frank | talk 18:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Checked per this diff, and in this incident, the two accounts are Technically indistinguishable. Bless sins has sinced claimed that Vice regent is a relation. WilliamH (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Blocked sock indefinitely, blocked master for a fortnight. TNXMan 19:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)