| Revision as of 20:02, 10 June 2012 editNymf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers44,196 edits →Comments by other users: closer to 60, actually← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:16, 10 June 2012 edit undoCanoe1967 (talk | contribs)10,807 edits →Comments by other users: CommentNext edit → | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
| I added my own checkuser tag. This should close the case quickly. I could also have it closed with and office action if you wish.--] (]) 19:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC) | I added my own checkuser tag. This should close the case quickly. I could also have it closed with and office action if you wish.--] (]) 19:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC) | ||
| *"If an accusation on this page is "bad faith" (an editor making a fake case for an "attack" or to prevent their own editing being examined) then you may wish to say so briefly" I do consider this as an attack accusation and feel that Erik's and other |
*"If an accusation on this page is "bad faith" (an editor making a fake case for an "attack" or to prevent their own editing being examined) then you may wish to say so briefly" I do consider this as an attack accusation and feel that Erik's and other editor's edits should be reviewed more closely.--] (]) 19:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC) | ||
| **Look at the archive of this page. Excuseme99 is a user who has had about 60 different incarnations. It is perfectly reasonable to raise suspicions of a user that resembles Excuseme99, and it is certainly not in bad faith. ] <sub>]</sub> 20:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC) | **Look at the archive of this page. Excuseme99 is a user who has had about 60 different incarnations. It is perfectly reasonable to raise suspicions of a user that resembles Excuseme99, and it is certainly not in bad faith. ] <sub>]</sub> 20:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ***I can't believe this bullshit. I come across an article with a 3yr+ discussion that still hasn't reached consensus an I get dragged into petty power trips by other editors. I actually had to show some how to read sources. I do consider this as an attack and the other editor's edits should be examined more closely. I believe in the same evidence that some schmuck gets blocked for and now I have to sink to your level and play your childish games when I actually have better things to do with my time.--] (]) 20:16, 10 June 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 20:16, 10 June 2012
Excuseme99
Excuseme99 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected
For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Excuseme99/Archive.
– This SPI case is open.
10 June 2012
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Canoe1967 (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.
Canoe1967 began editing primarily in February 2012. Prior to this Canoe1967 had a couple of edits in mid & late 2011. On May 20, 2012 another of Excuseme99's sock puppets was blocked. On May 23, 2012 Canoe1967 showed up in Sondra Locke to defend the unending incarnations of Excuseme99. Today Canoe1967 made this edit to the Lock talk page which is virtually identical to an earlier edit made by a confirmed sock puppet of Excuseme99.
To recap: Canoe1967 had never edited the article prior to Excuseme99's latest sock being blocked. Canoe1967's tone, style of type, and arguments (including the same "proof") are identical to Excuseme99. Canoe1967 has been overly hostile w/ the same editors that disagreed w/ Excuseme99 and has an advanced knowledge of Misplaced Pages that a new editor wouldn't have.
In short, this looks like yet another WP:DUCK. Erikeltic 19:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
My first edit there was to put the birth year in the info box. There was only one year in the lead at the time. Soon after someone added the other year and I deleted both in good faith and boldly as a BLP article should not contain false facts. One year is impossible and the talk page should reach consensus as to which year is correct. Having two years is just ridiculous. I have the same thoughts as that person(s?) because I looked at the same evidence in the same way. The lead of Patrick McGilligan (biographer) states that the biography is unauthorized and the rest is in all the same sources. I could ask my father if I may have a sibling out there that thinks like me if you like?--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
– A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.
I added my own checkuser tag. This should close the case quickly. I could also have it closed with and office action if you wish.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- "If an accusation on this page is "bad faith" (an editor making a fake case for an "attack" or to prevent their own editing being examined) then you may wish to say so briefly" I do consider this as an attack accusation and feel that Erik's and other editor's edits should be reviewed more closely.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- Look at the archive of this page. Excuseme99 is a user who has had about 60 different incarnations. It is perfectly reasonable to raise suspicions of a user that resembles Excuseme99, and it is certainly not in bad faith. Nymf hideliho! 20:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- I can't believe this bullshit. I come across an article with a 3yr+ discussion that still hasn't reached consensus an I get dragged into petty power trips by other editors. I actually had to show some how to read sources. I do consider this as an attack and the other editor's edits should be examined more closely. I believe in the same evidence that some schmuck gets blocked for and now I have to sink to your level and play your childish games when I actually have better things to do with my time.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- Look at the archive of this page. Excuseme99 is a user who has had about 60 different incarnations. It is perfectly reasonable to raise suspicions of a user that resembles Excuseme99, and it is certainly not in bad faith. Nymf hideliho! 20:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Categories: