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

Suspected sockpuppets

• Gsdan012 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• SamKns (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 202.52.235.145 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Disruption due to filing multiple requests for undeletion for not yet deleted article ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]) and disrupting the AfD-proces for Nikesh Thapaliya by adding multiple comments/!votes to give the impression of more support then there is:

• Ath.Sn: [7], [8]
• 202.52.235.145: [9], [10], [11] Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wasn't too sure about SamKns involvement because I couldn't find any misuse. But before I had removed him, the clerck endorsed the check and mentioned his name as correct titel. Confused, I did not remove him. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pretty clear case, see history of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikesh Thapaliya and my almost identical warning here Skier Dude (talk) 02:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, meant to add

113.199.144.131 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

•  Clerk endorsed - as Gsdan012's first and second requests for undeletion look very similar to Ath.Sn's argument here and the same plea here also. In fact, it almost looks like a broken record. Note that the account, SamKns is older and the author of the article in question so the case may need to be renamed.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed that the following accounts are related:

• Gsdan012 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ath.Sn (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

As no evidence has been provided to show suspicion that SamKns, I have not checked that account. Evidence must be provided for all accounts you wish to be checked, not just some of them. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Clerk note: I think I can still make a relevant case for an endorsement but can't do it on the device I am on right now. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Clerk endorsed - SamKns is editing at the same time frames as the other two socks are, and the two IPs, 202.52.235.145 and 113.199.128.0/17 both match the edit times as well. It does not make sense that a new user would also know how to add a category and would try and clear the articles of tags in their first few edits. Yes the new user only has two edits, both looking constructive, but the abuse stems from the other accounts, and if we don't clear it up now, it's just going to continue. Given we can't make a duck test block for someone creating an article, this is why a CU confirmation is needed. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SamKns is very  Likely to be related to the other two confirmed accounts. AGK [•] 14:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• All named accounts are blocked and tagged.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]