Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/81.194.35.225

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:81.194.35.225

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

87.231.0.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Whadaheck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Dark clear obsession (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - added by Yechiel (Shalom)

Report submission by

--brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

All have few edits outside their !votes at the following afd's, and all three voted in sync (with one minor exception). All these afd's concern the notability of contestants of America's Next Top Model, Cycle 9.

Comments

Idon't get it. Why does the fact that we sometimes agree (which is not as often as you say) mean we are one and the same? I saw a post on a message board about the deletion and as a fan of the show I posted what I thought. Hope that helps settling the case--87.231.0.64 (talk) 00:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think 87.etc is probably telling the truth. 81.etc's edits correlate with Whadaheck even outside the AFDs on Pussycat Dolls songs, but 87.etc's edits correlate only on those AFDs, so his explanation about finding out about those AFDs on a message-board is plausible. Note also, of course, that these are two different IP ranges. Definitely don't block any IP addresses, and I would say at this point not to block Whadaheck either because everyone knows anonymous votes don't really count at AFDs. I'll make sure a notice of this SSP is placed at all the AFDs, and that should resolve the matter. Thanks, Brewcrewer, for preparing this case in an organized format. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just added Dark clear obsession to the list. That account has 14 edits, going back to January 2008, but eight of those edits were on June 18 to three AFDs on this list and to the Kim Stolz article, in support of the "keep" opinions offered by other suspects here. It should be noted that Brewcrewer, who brought forth this suspicion, voted for "delete" on these AFDs. Yechiel (Shalom) 04:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the seven afd's, that editor voted one keep and two deletes, which I thought made for a weak case. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected this may happen, since almost all my edits concern ANTM, and anonymous or new members come out of the woodwork when ANTM-related articles come up for deletion. My edits have been sporadic since I found out certain family members *cough* enjoy vandalizing. I don't know if this can be settled without an admin doing IP checks/investigations, but I thought I could be of some assistance. Oh, and FWIW, I'd vote delete on the other AFD in question except possibly D'Amato. :) Dark clear obsession (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I thought this was a joke but apparently not. The fact that the people who are nominated voted weak keep/keep on most of those pages doesn't mean we are one and the same. It means we agree. I registered because I wanted to edit the ANTM page which ironically I still can't do and then I found those AfDs (two of which have led to a keep the last time it was nominated) and I figured I'd post on it because to me most of them have had little press, guest appearances and stuff which is what is needed to be notable right?--Whadaheck (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I'm going to punt on this one. I've read the responses, and it's very likely that these are all different people. I missed the fact that Dark clear obsession voted differently in some AFDs than the others did. Whadaheck is probably telling the truth, and even if he isn't, his lack of edit history will be noted by the closing admin, and IP anon votes don't really count for much. So I'll assume that these are different people, and the closing admins on those AFDs will already have the information they need. Yechiel (Shalom) 21:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm closing this. Nobody cares. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 18:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]