Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chelo61/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Chelo61

Chelo61 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date June 1 2009, 01:45 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by MuZemike

Repeatedly adding back the same rosters in all the WWE video games, just as the suspected sockmaster has done and has edit-warred up to violating 3RR. All edits by suspected sock similar formatting as those made over a week ago on the same set of WWE video game articles. For instance, [1] and [2] are very similar edits. MuZemike 01:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also adding 201.141.21.211 (talk · contribs), as edits are also exactly the same as those above. MuZemike 01:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

That is NOT my account. I am not the only who thinks that the roster should be added.Chelo61 (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: D (3RR using socks )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by MuZemike 01:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed Give the similarity of edits, and the 3RR problem presented here, checkuser is requested to confirm that Chelo61 has been using an alternative account to make the edits. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions

Red X Unrelated Currently available technical evidence indicates no relation between the above accounts. -- Avi (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 It has been archived automatically.

Thank you. I'll keep an eye on any warring in the article via watchlist. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

07 December 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

This user was just banned for edit warring on a page. And now a new user appears, having the same opinion as him or her. Yes, it could be a different person, but the fact that this was the new user's first edit suggests that it is quite possibly the same person. See this message on the talk page ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT 02:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I was involved in the discussion which led Chelo61 getting blocked. (I had to request a formal RfC as well as Full Protection of the page in question and issued the final warning before an admin blocked him/her). Although I had my suspicions too I chose to give the benefit of doubt. Now that Endingstart has opened the SPI I might as well air my concerns. Chelo61 has been blocked a total of 6 times for violation of policy mainly on Michael Jackson related articles. It is interesting how the accused user ZDriver speaks in the same tone and mannerism that Chelo61. His comments are almost identical... ZDriver is raising exactly the same issues that Chelo61 did (a user named SJ changed the page despite their being an on-going discussion). I would therefore hope that the checkuser can go ahead based on the behavioural evidence. If it is deemed to be Chelo61 I would think that a permanent ban would not be unreasonable but equally a topic ban from Michael Jackson would suffice as its clear Chelo has zealous tendencies when it comes to the subject of the late Michael Jackson. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 03:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
10 December 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

He's back, and this time using an IP. He even replied using the IP on his own talk page see here, and commented YET AGAIN on the article talk page, in which he got banned from. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT 23:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what I'm talking about now. Please excuse this. I must be very tired. I thought I read him replying to it with an IP, but I guess I was wrong, looking over it now. Oh boy am I embarrassed. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT 01:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Chelo61/Archive&oldid=1148855441"