Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Duke53/Archive

__TOC__

=== <big>Report date July 18 2009, 04:04 (UTC)</big>===

;Suspected sockpuppets

{{checkuser|68.3.165.84}}
{{checkip|70.190.199.33}}

;Evidence submitted by Duke53

;Comments by accused parties See Defending yourself against claims. One of our fellow editors (Bytebear) has commented publicly that he believes that I am using a sockpuppet; anyone care to investigate this false accusation? This is not the first time that members of a certain group of users have accused me of this. Thank You. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

;Comments by other users

I don't think there's much to be done with this one. I personally don't believe the accusation to be true, even though I can understand the reason it was raised. That said, there isn't enough behavioral evidence to do much with, and Duke53 isn't allowed to ask for a checkuser on himself. Inconclusive at best.—Kww(talk) 12:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

:: Then why can't you ask for a checkuser? It doesn't matter now who asks for it, since we all know who made the original accusation against me. It would be nice to get this little tool out of the 'bag of tricks' of some certain editors. Thank You. Duke53 | ^Talk 15:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

:::Because nothing about the interaction between you and the anon warrants one. There are rules to be followed, and this case doesn't rise to the level that a checkuser is warranted.—Kww(talk) 15:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

:::: We honest editors must simply learn to live with any false accusations that are made by dishonest editors? Sounds like quite a system to me. Thank You. Duke53 | ^Talk 15:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

;Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

{{clerknote}} Per the checkuser criteria, we do not use the checkuser tool to prove innocence. Icestorm815 • Talk 16:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

;Conclusions

----