Amatulic
- Amatulic ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
24 July 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
- MSJapan ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Evidence submitted by 129.133.127.244
Made same unique ad hominem comment three days apart, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:General_list_of_masonic_Grand_Lodges#Recognition_Network , my comment 03:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC) 129.133.127.244 ( talk) 03:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'll add more; this is what I put in the discussion page: "In case you didn't notice, this isn't Facebook." (User :Amatulic) 04:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC) "Once again, this isn't Facebook." (User :MSJapan) 14:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Now I call foul. This whole conversation is tainted. Are you Blueboar, too? None of this conversation for the past few weeks is trustworthy anymore.129.133.127.244 (talk) 03:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.127.244 ( talk)
Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users
Two editors disagreeing with you is not evidence enough to justify a sockpuppet accusation.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 04:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure I am being included in the accusation or not... but feel free to check anyway. Blueboar ( talk) 04:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Additional information needed – There has no be more than just "two people said the same thing". –
MuZemike 03:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Especially since the IP at least twice called this "Facebook" instead of "Wikipedia". This is a bad-faith request. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 15:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Clerk declined per the lack of evidence provided. Just because you have two people saying similar things does not mean they are the same person. –
MuZemike 16:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Amatulic
- Amatulic ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
24 July 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
- MSJapan ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Evidence submitted by 129.133.127.244
Made same unique ad hominem comment three days apart, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:General_list_of_masonic_Grand_Lodges#Recognition_Network , my comment 03:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC) 129.133.127.244 ( talk) 03:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'll add more; this is what I put in the discussion page: "In case you didn't notice, this isn't Facebook." (User :Amatulic) 04:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC) "Once again, this isn't Facebook." (User :MSJapan) 14:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Now I call foul. This whole conversation is tainted. Are you Blueboar, too? None of this conversation for the past few weeks is trustworthy anymore.129.133.127.244 (talk) 03:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.127.244 ( talk)
Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users
Two editors disagreeing with you is not evidence enough to justify a sockpuppet accusation.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 04:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure I am being included in the accusation or not... but feel free to check anyway. Blueboar ( talk) 04:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Additional information needed – There has no be more than just "two people said the same thing". –
MuZemike 03:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Especially since the IP at least twice called this "Facebook" instead of "Wikipedia". This is a bad-faith request. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 15:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Clerk declined per the lack of evidence provided. Just because you have two people saying similar things does not mean they are the same person. –
MuZemike 16:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)