Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"
Based on his talk page comments on White supremacy,
[1] (which have a similar flavour to Mikemikev's style, eg the trolling reference to Hitler) on the fact that he added the peacock adjectives
[2] to the lede which were then restored
[3] by an IP 94.116.40.133 from a range that Mikemikev is known to have used, I think a SPI (or even a checkuser) could confirm
that Rrrr5 is a sockpuppet of Mikemikev. In this diff with an IP from the same range
94.116.40.97(
talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), Mikemikev identified himself:
[4] Likewise with the IP
94.116.72.160(
talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) he identified himself here
[5] (edit summary: I'm just pointing out the incompetence, and I'm right. It's you who's trolling.) and was subsequently blocked for ban evasion.
Mathsci (
talk) 09:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Oops, I missed out an "r" in Rrrrr5. Thanks for pointing it out and sorry for any confusion (Rrrr5 seems wholly unrelated).
Mathsci (
talk) 14:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See
Defending yourself against claims.
Mathsci: Why not just get back to editing articles? Why even worry about it or take time out of your day to bother posting here? And why are you still involved in racial articles? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
92.60.177.65 (
talk •
contribs) 08:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Administrator note I've blocked the IP for two weeks for evasion. Above you've listed Rrrr5 (one capital R, three lowercase) - did you mean to write Rrrrr5 (one capital R, four lowercase), or are you accusing both of them? —
HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!) 14:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Rrrrr5 (
talk·contribs) is Unrelated to previous Mikemikev accounts. However, there is (possibly) more going here, so I'd like to send an email to get a second opinion. On hold until then.
TNXMan 15:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)reply
This case was on hold, but I'm relisting it as it's sat untouched for eight days. Should we just close this out? —
HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!) 16:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)reply
I guess. I didn't hear back from ArbCom, but there may still be some action taken in the (hopefully near) future.
TNXMan 16:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)reply
After taking a further look, I agree with Tnxman in both respects. Rrrrr5 is very unlikely to be related to Mikemikev, but this case is on hold pending investigation from the Arbitration Committee. No action should be taken absent word from an arbitrator.
Hersfold(
t/
a/
c) 18:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Note that the last is an administrator and that this aspect of the case is being handled in another venue. —
Coren(talk) 17:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)reply
I'm moving this back to the checked column, awaiting admin action.
TNXMan 18:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Administrator note I've blocked the first three accounts from Coren's list, but whose socks should I tag them as? Leaving Spencer195, pending clarification at
WT:ACN.
HJ Mitchell |
Penny for your thoughts? 23:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)reply
I don't believe the Committee is likely to opine on the socking issue proper beyond noting that all four accounts were clearly operated by the same person. —
Coren(talk) 00:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Since Spencer appears to be the oldest account, it's probably best to file/tag the socks under him.
TNXMan 12:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Spencer was blocked by Deskana, were done here. --
DQ (t) (e) 12:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)reply