Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DoDaCanaDa/Archive

DoDaCanaDa

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

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

Requests for checkuser/Case/DoDaCanaDa

Report date November 9 2009, 22:37 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Perhaps also the following 2 users (though I'm not so certain)

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

Evidence submitted by Newman Luke

DoDaCanaDa has engaged in several disputes, from the look of his talk page, mainly about the article Ray Joseph Cormier (now deleted), which is seemingly about himself (according to DoDaCanaDa's user page). For unexplained, and fairly inexplicable reasons, he was given a barnstar by User:AristoLtd. Yet AristoLtd has just 4 edits - why would a user that new give out a barnstar to someone that obscure, who seems mainly concerned with his own article about himself. Two of the other 3 edits of AristoLtd were also unexplained barnstars - for LeonisRugitur and SusanLesch, though I'm not sure whether this was actually just misdirection to obscure the other barnstar.Newman Luke (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

CheckUser requests

Checkuser request – code letter: CODE LETTER (Unknown code )

Current status –

Declined, the reason can be found below. Requested by Newman Luke (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Clerk declined Nice gestures doesn't really qualify as "abusive socking" which is what CheckUser is for. Find some more evidence please, GrooveDog • i'm groovy. 05:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Conclusions

Clerk note: No action taken. There's no convincing behavioral evidence I can see that abusive sock puppetry is going on. MuZemike 03:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 It has been archived automatically.