Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rukn950/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Rukn950

Rukn950 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
10 April 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

I suspect following users to be involved in sockpuppetry and subsets of the following may be from same IP ,some of them are heavily involved in edit warring and disputes over fully protected article Dawoodi Bohra and other Bohra articles and giving other admins and reliable third parties like User:Anupmehra a hard time. One of the user Araz5152 created a hoax article Qutbi Bohra which had to be completely transformed by another reliable author. So do let me know about the investigation:

Mufaddalqn SamanthaPuckettIndo Markdrows Md iet Murtazajamali DistributorScientiae Araz5152 Summichum (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Callanecc As per what I read in the instruction the last point gives us the option that we can summarize the reason behind reporting which I did. There is a small subset of the above users who are editing Bohra related articles only and that too pushing a single POV which was even reverted by User:Anupmehra and admin User:Crisco 1492. They have also been reported at COI noticeboard , User:Anupmehra partially agreed to it too. It is not possible to provide the diffs the disputed edits are much more abstract. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk •Summichum (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC) contribs) 12:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Callanecc see one of the users md_iet was already blocked for socket pupetting , as shown in: User:HUS_abd , after analyzing the diffs i strongly suspect user:Md_iet is again sockpupetting with user DistributorScientiae. user SamanthaPuckettIndo, mutazajamali are other suspects. Here are the diffs:
Lengthy list of diffs
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Dawoodi Bohra

2012-11-28 05:48 UTC Md iet 57 @NONE
2013-01-22 08:58 UTC Md iet 56 /* History */
2013-02-02 05:13 UTC Md iet 55 @NONE
2013-02-05 06:27 UTC Md iet 54 /* Tayyibi-Hafizi schism */
2013-02-05 06:28 UTC Md iet 53 /* Tayyibi-Hafizi schism */
2013-02-05 06:52 UTC Md iet 52 /* Persecution in India, and movement of the Dawat */
2013-02-05 06:55 UTC Md iet 51 /* Persecution in India, and movement of the Dawat */
2013-02-05 07:09 UTC Md iet 50 /* Persecution in India, and movement of the Dawat */
2013-02-05 07:23 UTC Md iet 49 /* Establishment in India */
2013-03-25 09:54 UTC Md iet 48 /* Education and renovation projects */
2013-03-25 10:01 UTC Md iet 47 /* Education and renovation projects */
2013-03-25 10:06 UTC Md iet 46 /* Education and renovation projects */
2013-03-25 10:11 UTC Md iet 45 /* Education and renovation projects */
2013-05-20 06:33 UTC Md iet 44 Comments on basic belief not well supported.
2013-05-25 07:22 UTC Md iet 43 Undid revision 556596305 by Sherenk1 (talk)template already exist
2013-07-09 08:17 UTC Md iet 42 /* Shia schisms and the Fatimid Dynasty */
2013-07-09 08:19 UTC Md iet 41 /* Shia schisms and the Fatimid Dynasty */
2013-12-10 10:15 UTC Md iet 40 /* Shia schisms and the Fatimid Dynasty */
2014-01-14 11:06 UTC Md iet 39 /* Transfer of Dawat to India */
2014-01-14 11:15 UTC Md iet 38 /* Transfer of Dawat to India */
2014-01-14 11:18 UTC Md iet 37 /* Transfer of Dawat to India */
2014-01-15 06:36 UTC Md iet 36 @NONE
2014-01-15 06:41 UTC Md iet 35 /* Transfer of Dawat to India */
2014-01-15 06:43 UTC Md iet 34 /* Transfer of Dawat to India */
2014-01-15 06:50 UTC Md iet 33 @NONE
2014-01-21 04:56 UTC Md iet 32 @NONE
2014-01-21 04:59 UTC Md iet 31 @NONE
2014-01-21 05:04 UTC Md iet 30 @NONE
2014-01-21 05:09 UTC Md iet 29 @NONE
2014-01-21 05:13 UTC Md iet 28 @NONE
2014-01-21 06:57 UTC Md iet 27 Undid revision 591677977 by 67.70.39.138 (talk)unexplained deletion
2014-01-21 06:58 UTC Md iet 26 @NONE
2014-01-23 05:36 UTC Md iet 25 @NONE
2014-01-23 05:48 UTC Md iet 24 @NONE
2014-01-23 06:59 UTC Md iet 23 more suitable words.
2014-01-23 10:45 UTC Md iet 22 @NONE
2014-01-24 11:08 UTC Md iet 21 @NONE
2014-01-24 11:19 UTC Md iet 20 @NONE
2014-01-24 11:21 UTC Md iet 19 @NONE
2014-01-24 17:59 UTC DistributorScientiae 7 @NONE
2014-01-24 18:04 UTC DistributorScientiae 6 Irrelevant passage, referances in consideration of the page. Deleted.
2014-01-24 18:19 UTC DistributorScientiae 5 unsystematic image removed.
2014-01-24 19:19 UTC DistributorScientiae 4 Irrelevant passage, references in consideration of the page.
2014-01-24 19:20 UTC DistributorScientiae 3 @NONE
2014-01-24 19:25 UTC DistributorScientiae 2 @NONE
2014-01-24 19:43 UTC DistributorScientiae 1 @NONE
2014-01-26 09:57 UTC Markdrows 1 @NONE
2014-01-29 09:51 UTC Md iet 18 Undid revision 592860882 by Mogism (talk)
2014-01-29 10:11 UTC Md iet 17 Undid revision 592851334 by 121.103.174.63 (talk) Unexplained edition, matter under discussion at talk page.
2014-01-31 10:19 UTC Md iet 16 @NONE
2014-02-04 03:10 UTC Md iet 15 Undid revision 593829985 by 67.70.39.138 (talk) Please discuss at talk page, matter under discussion..
2014-02-13 03:46 UTC Md iet 14 Most information is from chat or blog and seems non encyclopedic, please discuss at talk page before any addition.
2014-02-13 03:50 UTC Murtazajamali 1 /* External links */
2014-02-13 03:51 UTC Md iet 13 /* Inter-Bohra schisms */
2014-02-13 04:04 UTC Md iet 12 /* Inter-Bohra schisms */
2014-02-13 04:05 UTC Md iet 11 /* Inter-Bohra schisms */
2014-02-13 04:17 UTC Md iet 10 /* Inter-Bohra schisms */
2014-02-13 04:20 UTC Md iet 9 /* Inter-Bohra schisms */
2014-02-22 10:18 UTC Md iet 8 Undid revision 596525784 by Summichum (talk) Most matter from chat, self fabricated pov, non encyclopaedic. May please discuss at talk page before any further addition.
2014-03-01 12:18 UTC Md iet 7 /* Difference between Dawoodi Bohra and other Islamic sects */ Most material from forums unreliable sources and seems to added for forcing particular partisan POV, may please be discussed on talk page to have consensus.
2014-03-04 10:39 UTC Md iet 6 /* Difference between Dawoodi Bohra and other Islamic sects */ non encyclopaedic, all the material from forums.
2014-03-05 03:03 UTC Md iet 5 @NONE
2014-03-05 03:10 UTC Md iet 4 @NONE
2014-03-05 03:13 UTC Md iet 3 @NONE
2014-03-05 12:21 UTC Md iet 2 Undid revision 598224141 by Summichum (talk) non encyclopaedic,
2014-03-10 02:52 UTC Md iet 1 @NONE
2014-03-11 08:21 UTC SamanthaPuckettIndo 1 /* References */
2014-03-15 11:28 UTC Rukn950 13 /* Tayyibi-Hafizi schism */
2014-03-18 12:36 UTC Rukn950 12 /* Tayyibi-Hafizi schism */
2014-03-23 10:29 UTC Rukn950 11 Reverted 1 edit by Summichum (talk) to last revision by Mufaddalqn. (TW)
2014-03-23 17:10 UTC Rukn950 10 /* Religion */
2014-03-23 17:15 UTC Rukn950 9 /* Qardhan Hasana */ added under Qardan Hasanah heading along with references.
2014-03-23 17:23 UTC Rukn950 8 /* Qardhan Hasana */
2014-03-23 17:24 UTC Rukn950 7 /* Qardhan Hasana */ typo
2014-03-23 17:28 UTC Rukn950 6 /* Qardhan Hasana */
2014-03-23 17:30 UTC Rukn950 5 Undid revision 600901877 by Mufaddalqn (talk)
2014-03-23 17:32 UTC Rukn950 4 Undid revision 600901877 by Mufaddalqn (talk)
2014-03-23 17:42 UTC Rukn950 3 /* Qardhan Hasana */
2014-03-27 05:59 UTC Rukn950 2 Adding (WP:TW)
2014-03-27 06:50 UTC Rukn950 1 Reference from India TV added
combined edits : 545
combined users : 6

Summichum (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc A gentle reminder to look into the request, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 04:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Dear Callanecc User:Qwfp there are many users who are pushing POV in dawoodi bohra related articles , please look into the matter as its pending since a long time.Spenceroodi (talk) 10:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is baseless allegation in no way I have been indulged in soc-puppetry I have changed my ID from mufaddalqn to Rukn950 as I have right to do so and I don't have to give any explanation. The same is recorded in the History.I don't think User:Summichum is wrongly judged. I have no personal difference with him yet he is shows bad faith in reporting me everywhere.Rukn950 (talk) 08:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user summichum is hard bent on getting me block. he had unsuccessfully reported me for 3R violation 2 times and now he has dragged me to this. he has also reported me for COI. I am getting fed up with this guy and his false allegations. I don't have to sock puppet to edit mentioned articles, because I have not done any violation.Rukn950 (talk) 08:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would request check on User:Summichum for sock-puppetry and also review on all the related talkpages for his SPA.Rukn950 (talk) 08:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am Stephen, and i have only one account.. why are you relating khinzirma,arvinduncle,rukn with my account? --Markdrows (talk) 08:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bring to the notice of User:Anupmehra, User:Qwfp and admin User:Crisco 1492 that a significant damage has been already made , in that because of this clear case of meat puppetry (atleast) one editor User:Summichum was judged wrongly and even blocked. Please take corrective action against the offenders and the main dispute article should be reverted back to the stable version which is well cited :[1]Spenceroodi (talk) 07:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is this sockpuppetry?--Markdrows (talk) 08:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that I have been checked for sockpuppetry and WP:MEAT. on my defense I would like to state that I have not indulged in these behavior. On what basis have I been dragged here?. User:Summichum has been blocked thrice for edit war and has also been warned. it seems he has vendetta against me. I have looked to the differences stated. I feel there is no logic for Socpuppetry for such edits.Rukn950 (talk) 06:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you carefully study the list of user given above and their edits, these are users who do not agree to summichums POV.That doesnt make them sock-puppets.I was also not notified for this SPI.Rukn950 (talk) 06:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diff:[2].This link defines my involvement for AFD and widrawal of AFD after having discussion of Qutbi Bohra article against summichum claim.Rukn950 (talk) 07:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am surprised to see my name being discussed here for the sockpuppet topic. Let me make it clear myself again here, that I am from Dawoodi Bohra community which I have openly accepted in my some talk page discussion as some wild allegation was made on community and for me. The main aim of my joining Wiki was made clear on my user page from the beginning of my joining 5-6 years back. I have many constructive editing to my records and very few are reverted, which I have accepted with due regards to keep Wiki norms above all.

I was first surprised and felt proud of Wiki systems and rules, when suddenly I was held culprit of sock puppeting for hus_abd case. I was not knowing anything about this feature and could think that somebody can do like this also. I was at my nephew(Husain, about 12-14 yrs old that time)'s visit in Mumbai and I told him about this amazing wiki platform. He was also impressed and asked me to open his account. As he was in total agreement with my one of view which was hotly discussed at that time, I helped him to open his account and guided him to participate in that talk page. That was only my fault that I supported one more volunteer for Wiki, but my plea was not accepted. As I was for very short visit and I could not guide him further, he did not bothered about his account, I also forgot password and I have to honour Wiki decision.

I was not aware of the feature of knowing about individuals notices through red marked No. shown along with individuals page details on right hand corner on top . From last few days only, I have started looking at it, that too very casually. When suddenly I saw my name, being correlated with sockpuppeting today, connected this page and very surprised that my name is put on notice by a user: Summichum category. Let me make it clear that I am a fan of Wiki and Wiki norms are above all for me. I do not like false propaganda at all and dead against false allegations. I support facts and try to usually add material in good faith and then make my best efforts to make it to Wiki standard. Recently there is Succession dispute in Bohra community and now only I really came to know, why Wiki has made so many rules and why they are so important. Suddenly I felt that a article Mufaddal Saifuddin which was well sustained and edited by me very often from last 3-4 years, has become a battle ground. New editors have joined and each words has now become important like in some constitution. There is nothing like faith and a war like situation. user: Summichum seems to be result of this type of situation. This fellow has been blocked recently[3], [4], [5], [6], for third time in quick succession. Trying to blame everybody coming in his way, making aggressive, disrupting editing for forcing his POV, not listening to any advice.

I can only say that one admin has put me in the group of (Murtazajamali (talk · contribs), Md iet (talk · contribs), DistributorScientiae (talk · contribs) and Araz5152 (talk · contribs)), I don't know why? I don't know about the others much but can only say that DistributorScientiae (talk · contribs) is doing many time editing on Bohra related topics from quite a long period and I found his editing constructive and I was thinking him of a third party editor. Regarding Murtazajamali (talk · contribs) and Araz5152 (talk · contribs), I have come across them only recently, and found involved much on bohra related topics after propaganda being created by succession crisis. I guess that this two fellow are also seems to be Dawoodi Bohra and follower of Fatimid principles not knowing much about Wiki principles but seems to be good faith editors likes me but reverting the things which I am trying to understand right for wiki. I am 5-6 years old Wikian but as described above regarding rules I am a still a new comer, but I am very clear that wiki follows rules and that is above all and I don't object to material if it is put in a wikepedian encyclopedic manner (even if I know that that is not a fact). But always aggressive and try that nobody misuse/tarnish Wiki platform for forcing his personal POV. Fact is fact and it will come out someday with all Wiki reliable sources, let us put it in wiki NPOV manner.--Md iet (talk) 13:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dear CallaneccThe above group of users specially Md iet indulge in meat puppetry and got me blocked as they were pushing their POV promoting mufaddal as the 53rd dai by re -editing bohra articles to name Mufaddal as 53rd dai even though he is just a first claimant , it is well known that the stroke ridden debilitated body of burhanuddin was used by his son and his family to orchestrate a sucession ceremony as burhanuddin was even not able to speak , when these people can use their own fathers body to fake a sucession ceremony at large scale fooling thosaunds present, than you can expect they can also come here on wikipedia and promote their propoganda that Mufaddal is the 53rd dai, whereas we know that the main contention is that the body of burhanuddin was used to stage a succession ceremony while he himself was in comatose state with serious mental deficits. This is also the main premise of the 700 page petition filed in bombay high court . This also falls in human rights and patient rights violation and burhanuddin, a seriously ill patient was flown in from london to stage a succession ceremony , knowing well that the body of the patient could not speak or move hence wont object to what is being done on him. Also I dont support either claimants but this should not mean that any one side should declare themselves as 53rd dai when the matter is so controversial and full of malicious elements who wanted to reach the throne by any means possible even if it involves using a comatose bodySpenceroodi (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
If you wish to start a case against another user, go ahead and start a case. Do not attempt to make a case here. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Dear Callanecc The Above user Spenceroodi(Summichum)'s POV and SPA is clear from his above comments.Rukn950 (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigations/Summichum

User:Summichum has opened another account after being blocked and resumed his editing by the name of Spenceroodi may be he has another account, I would request Callanecc to check this user for soc-puppetry.Rukn950 (talk) 11:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

proof: his above comment,

"Bring to the notice of User:Anupmehra, User:Qwfp and admin User:Crisco 1492 that a significant damage has been already made , in that because of this clear case of meat puppetry (atleast) one editor User:Summichum was judged wrongly and even blocked. Please take corrective action against the offenders and the main dispute article should be reverted back to the stable version which is well cited :[1]Spenceroodi (talk) 07:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)"

Rukn950 I had already specified on my user page that I am summichum and I was blocked using meat puppetry fraud by you people, I would request admin Callanecc to look into the matter and investigate the off-wiki canvassing done by these editors and all of them should be treated as sockpuppets as per WP:MEAT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spenceroodi (talk • contribs) 11:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jezebel'sPonyo,Callanecc, User:Crisco 1492,In the above statement he present himself as another user and after my request to check sock-puppetry of user summichum he has mentioned in userpage of Spenceroodi. that he is summichum.I would request all the user and concerned Editors and Admin to notice this persons dubious behavior. and dragging me to this investigation when he himself is at fault.strict action should be taken against this user. I dont know how many additional sockpuppet accout this user has.Rukn950 (talk) 12:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

proof: Please see the dates of the edits.

    • my request: I would request check on User:Summichum for sock-puppetry and also review on all the related talkpages for his SPA.Rukn950 (talk) 08:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spenceroodi's history: (cur | prev) 09:23, 8 May 2014‎ Spenceroodi (talk | contribs)‎ . . (283 bytes) (+283)‎ . . (←Created page with 'Hi, I am Summichum, this is my new account ,I was blocked due to error in judgement as I am a victim of sock puppetry as proven from the investigations here: [h...') (thank)

@Anupmehra, Qwfp, and Callanecc:, user summichum has again and again taken your reference to prove his agenda. I dont think he has your consent.He has been caught red handed now. Rukn950 (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I leave to you good editors and Admin to judge him and take appropriate action.Rukn950 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect these user too are Summichum or engaged in WP:MEAT

This was the result for Summichum for being blocked.

  • Result: Summichum is already blocked two weeks per an earlier report. He is now warned that, if he will not wait for consensus on Dawoodi Bohra topics, he may be indefinitely blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 15:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Even after been warned he engaged in disruptive edit by using another account, that of Spenceroodi and possibly above mentioned users Rukn950 (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • @Summichum: Without diffs CUs generally won't check especially with the backlog we currently have. So I'm going to need diffs before I can endorse. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk endorsed - Whilst the list of diffs is a little confusing, there is enough evidence for a check in my opinion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of these accounts use multiple highly dynamic ranges to edit; the following is what I could tease out of the data:
  • Apologies for the vagueness, however the number of IPs involved (300+ between two of the accounts alone) make checks rather tedious and somewhat inconclusive.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
06 December 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

They are focussing their edits on single topic , WP:MEAT is suspected strongly, Rukn950 was earlier found to be sockpuppet and it seems repeating using meat puppetry:

Wiki articles doing meat pupptery: [Mufaddal Saifuddin]

[Dawoodi Bohra]

[53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra)] Summichum (talk) 07:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rukn950 edit count: 1324

Ramiericson edit count: 59

Numbers in blue indicate which editor first edited the page.

Page Min time between edits Ramiericson edits Rukn950 edits

Mufaddal Saifuddin 1 days — (timeline) 20 91

Dawoodi Bohra 12 days — (timeline) 2 42

User talk:Summichum 24 days — (timeline) 1 19

Mohammed Burhanuddin 103 days — (timeline) 3 37

53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) 105 days — (timeline) 7 23

Qutbi Bohra 218 days — (timeline) 3 1

Khuzaima Qutbuddin 221 days — (timeline) 1 11

List of Dai of Dawoodi Bohra 223 days — (timeline) 4 2

@Mike V: Summichum may not know how to file evidence along with the revisions. I still think that he has provided a bit of evidence, as his summaries tells that these two editors share similar interest. Ramiericson was created when Rukn950 was blocked. Ramiericson claims that Summichum made up sources,[7] just like Rukn950 did before.[8] These 2 diffs also show Rukn950's criticism of Khuzaima.
Ramiericson writes "Dear Admins, Summichum is writing false news here. Both the medias are biased. Khuzaima has paid Million's to these media for making biased news. Survey is completely fake. Summichum is inserting wrong info on Mufaddal Saifuddin Page."[9] You may want to compare it with "Dear Admins, he has also done wrong edits on Mufaddal Saifuddin page, adding completely biased information against Mufaddal Saifuddin and in favour of Khuzaima Qutbuddin. He is humiliating our Dawoodi Bohra community beliefs. He is paying various media sources (like DNA,mumbai mirror,gujarat mirror) to write biased information in favour of Khuzaima Qutbuddin, and he uses that sources as references.[10] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • thanks, also in the mean time another sockpuppet has been created to disrupt dawoodi bohra articles , this was created after User :Md_iet was topic banned on dawoodi bohra articles, I very strongly suspect Md_iet to be sockpuppeting again using Usr name:Qazxcv1234 , so I request you to also include two other names:
in the above investigation, at the very least they are WP:MEAT and they have been caught earlier too in the report of Rukn, see the archives of SPI of rukn. They are continuing their WP:MEAT activities even after being warned before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk) 8:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
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]
  •  Additional information needed @Summichum: While an editor interaction report is a helpful tool to get an initial sense of the possibility of sockpuppetry, it's only a starting point. Could you provide a list of diffs from the two users that demonstrates that they have similar behaviors? This page may help provide you with some ideas of what to look for. Mike V • Talk 19:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk endorsed Thanks for providing additional information. I looked and also saw some concerning edits that might demonstrate "tag teaming" by the two accounts: Rukn950 1, 2, 3 Ramiericson: 4, 5, 6. Mike V • Talk 00:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  In progress - There are socks here, I suspect, but one of my main tools to run CU is down. I wish to wait till tomorrow to have it back up to run such checks. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rukn950 has a second account which has not edited outside the userspace, and therefore no violation of policies.
  • Rukn950  Unlikely Ramiericson
  •  Confirmed:
-- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've created a new case here for the Ramiericson socks. Given the CU results, I'm not taking any action towards Rukn950. Mike V • Talk 20:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike V • [[User_talk:Mike V| Thanks, I had myself suspected a case of WP:MEAT , hence what disciplinary action to be taken for WP:MEAT cases?

Also may I know the status of this new account I reported Summichum (talk) 13:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]



09 March 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

see the contribs on recent edit war notice to ruqn , this new user signed as royalmaster directly on the editwar notice of ruqn , soon after ruqn also edited it. It could also be the same old Mdiet sock. Summichum (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Again????Rukn950 (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Do you think I am so Naive?Rukn950 (talk) 15:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems anyone who disagrees with summichum becomes my sockpuppet (sic).Rukn950 (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rukn950/Archive&oldid=1142566427"