Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wran: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No what? is this a decline? (Taking to user talk)
Line 20: Line 20:


======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>======
======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>======
{{no}}


----
----

Revision as of 15:31, 22 October 2011

– A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.

Wran

Wran (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log· investigate · cuwiki)
Populated account categories: suspected
For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wran/Archive.
22 October 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


I first encountered the issue at an ANI thread that said there was possible edit warring going on at Dominique_Strauss-Kahn. Looking at the edit history, it appears Alis9 added content that was removed. Wran reverted the content back in three times. I started looking at their edit summaries and I found that they very often use the same lower case one word edit summaries which are usually "additions". Then I went to look at which account was first. Wran was the earliest account so I look at the date Alis9 was created (22 December 2010) and reviewed what Wran was doing around that time. I found that Wran was involved in a content dispute on The Rules of the Game. I found that Alis9's second edit was to support Wran's point of view on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film where a source Wran wanted to use on The Rules of the Game was in dispute. Request a CU to determine if there was a violation of WP:3RR. v/r - TP 15:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments