If you are creating a new request about this user, please add it to the top of the page, above this notice. Don't forget to add
((Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Inetpup))
to the checkuser page here. Previous requests (shown below), and this box, will be automatically hidden on Requests for checkuser (but will still appear here).

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

Inetpup[edit]

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 02:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Inetpup (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
WikiFlyer (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Code letter: E

Attempting to skirt 3RR on San Francisco International Airport (see here for WP:SSP case with more details). Fourth revert from WikiFlyer occurred shortly after a 3RR warning on Inetpup's talk page. Diffs:

[1] by Inetpup
[2] by Inetpup
[3] by Inetpup
[4] by WikiFlyer
[5] by WikiFlyer

Note the similar style edit summaries. Also of note is that WikiFlyer was created a few days ago, at a time when Inetpup was active, and that WikiFlyer has made no other edits since then (and Inetpup has made no other edits other than to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Inetpup). dcandeto 02:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The dcandeto failed to notify me that this action was being taken. --Inetpup 23:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not required. dcandeto 23:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with your allegation. You engaged in 3RR, as did I (note that this was my first and did not know about this rule until I committed it), so your argument position has been compromised. I suggest arbitration. Thank you.--Inetpup 22:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read the 3 revert rule. It's the fourth edit that's the offending one. You were told about it, and then you created another account to violate it while dcandeto only reverted 3 times; in addition, you were consciously going against the consensus from the discussion on another page. --Matt 23:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Mlaroche has already made clear, I did not violate 3RR (but was very tempted to do a fourth revert). My position has not been compromised. Please stop making claims which are spurious and false to distract from what is now evident as sockpuppetry. Also, I doubt the validity of your claim not to have known that you were about to violate 3RR; I placed the warning on your talk page twelve minutes before you made further reverts with the second account. dcandeto 04:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed. I suggest not using sockpuppets to violate 3RR. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.