81.131.6.69 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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

Suspected sockpuppets

• 81.131.6.69 ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser ( log))
• Martinphi ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Evidence

Martinphi a banned user has been accused of sockpuppetry on ANI here. [1]. Checkuser needed to verify or not the accusation.( olive ( talk) 01:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)) reply

Specifically, this IP's prose bears strong style and content similarities to that of User:Martinphi and Martin's confirmed sockpuppet User:Durga's Trident, which he used to disrupt an arbitration proceeding. Skinwalker ( talk) 02:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Actually, the style and content look completely different than Durga's Trident: [2] Dreadstar † 02:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I made the request for a Checkuser to clarify accusations made against a user, as my wording above indicates, who was unable to be present himself, and in a situation where a discussion looked to be escalating into, once again, a nice case of Wikidrama, as has often been the case if either Science Apologist or Martinphi come up in conversation. Neither SA or Martinphi was part of the discussion. Perhaps accusation should be laid out in the appropriate venues as cases with diffs as proof, then such discussions would be less likely to occur and such use of Checkusers not needed. Just my opinion, but I would prefer us to treat all editors as if they were real people with feelings and reputations, and whatever our opinions might be of them, with respect.( olive ( talk) 21:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)) reply

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Given the apparent UK location, and the writing style, Iantresman is my guess. (Iantreman also has used sockpuppets to attack ScienceApologist). Cardamon ( talk) 03:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Those bullet points look familiar, don't they. Kevin ( talk) 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Why are we asking for checkuser for a single edit? Am I missing something? - brenneman 04:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

The single edit was used to present a suspiciously familiar set of info designed to stir up a shit storm against ScienceApologist. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Ahh, I'm not thick. What I'm saying is that what does a checkuser hope to gain at this point? We're going to double-ban User:Martinphi? We're going to hard-block a probable throw-away (and possibly shared) IP? Checkuser isn't required until there's actually a problem for it to solve, right? - brenneman 05:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I believe, based on comments by Littleolive oil ( talk · contribs) and Dreadstar ( talk · contribs), the purpose of the checkuser request was actually to defend Martinphi ( talk · contribs). If this is accurate, it's not really a great use of checkuser. I agree with the comment below that this is more likely to be Iantresman ( talk · contribs). — Scien tizzle 19:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

For whatever it may be worth, I notice here that the similar IP 81.131.9.117 was also recently suspected of being Iantresman. Cardamon ( talk) 06:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

CheckUser requests

Checkuser request – code letter: A (Arbcom ban/sanction evasion )

Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk note: People are talking about CU, but the case contains no CU request. If CU is wanted, can somebody make a case for it by adding {{ RFCU}} Mayalld ( talk) 14:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC) reply

 Clerk endorsed - Tiptoety ^talk 04:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Conclusions

•  Unrelated when checked against Martinphi.
•  Inconclusive when checked against Iantresman.

-- Deskana (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC) reply

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Tiptoety 
talk 
19:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
reply