Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EmeraldWicket9947/Archive

EmeraldWicket9947

EmeraldWicket9947 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

22 October 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

• CHall10006 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • SPI Tools

EmeraldWicket9947 was originally Christopher10006 (the usernames are easiest followed in the user talk history). CHall10006 requested a courtesy vanishing. Looking at the user's contributions to see whether the unblock was merited request I saw the history of User:EmeraldWicket9947/sandbox which shows CHall10006 is the same person. The master has been evading the block imposed on the sock for nearly a decade. Cabayi (talk) 08:04, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

I have blocked this user per my comments at [1]. — Voice of Clam 07:03, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

•  Confirmed Cabayi (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
• Under discussion at User talk:CHall10006, Special:Permalink/1117747139. Cabayi (talk) 10:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• Closing. Spicy (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Spicy should this be tagged? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

  RoySmith, I don't really care if someone does so, but I intentionally didn't tag. It's a weird situation - not your average sockpuppetry case. There's also the concern raised here and while they may not be eligible for vanishing, I think we can at least do the courtesy of not slapping a tag on them. Spicy (talk) 00:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

  Works for me, thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

---