Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dtemkin4

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Dtemkin4

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Dtemkin4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Coryp2004 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
All4wingmen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Mr Senseless (talk) 06:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Dtemkin4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked indefinately for creating spam pages for a company Amalgam Entertainment, LLC. He or she has also posted the same article under Amalgam entertainment. Both of these have been speedily deleted multiple times. Recently, another similar article Amalgam Digital was created by user All4wingmen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) . Additionally, Coryp2004 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reposted Amalgam Entertainment, LLC again. I took the possible puppeteer to the COI noticeboard earlier today, and then after reviewing that entry again as well as his more recent contributions, I realized sockpuppetry could be involved. All three accounts have almost identical contribution lists.

Comments

I reviewed all accounts and the remaining article's history. This looks like fairly good proof of sockpuppetry. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• I also put in a checkuser request to see if the IP in question could be blocked. I will post any outcome of that here. Mr Senseless (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

All blocked, see RFCU case. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

---