Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Nukes4Tots
The result of the previous checkuser was that User:Nukes4Tots admitted to puppeteering both Winged Brick and Asams10 in an email to the checkuser - where? Also, the previous case was marked closed-to-arbcomm - where? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- If you check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nukes4Tots/Archive, Nishkid64 (the checkuser) wrote "The ArbCom will now deal with everything related to this case. Please close this case for now as deferred to ArbCom." If you want more information about Nukes4Tots admitting the sockpuppetry, or the ArbCom status, please contact Nishkid64. He is the one with whom I corresponded and who revealed the ArbCom and admitted sockpuppetry information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theserialcomma (talk • contribs)
- I've sent the Arbitration Committee asking for an update. I've been kept out of the loop since I handed the case over to them. I don't know what they decided, if anything. I do have concerns about the current SPI, as noted by Mayalld here. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, not happy with this. The evidence for N4T "admitting" to be WB and A10 is not available, so I don't think TSC should be claiming this admission (is TSC asserting that he is privy to this private evidence? If not, by what means does TSC know this to be true?). Nor is it at all clear *why* the previous case was closed-to-arbcomm: there is no obvious case for it, why should a simple RFCU go to arbcomm? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've sent the Arbitration Committee asking for an update. I've been kept out of the loop since I handed the case over to them. I don't know what they decided, if anything. I do have concerns about the current SPI, as noted by Mayalld here. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- With permission, TSC was made aware of N4T's admission. However, the course of action proposed was disputed (there was some real life aspects involved with the case), so I sent the matter to the Arbitration Committee. Unless the AC talked to TSC (which doesn't seem to be the case), the results of the previous RFCU should not have been discussed. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm a bit concerned that TSC is continuing to harass me. There has got to be some limit to the hounding. It is becoming seriously annoying to have somebody constantly following your every action. A bit disturbing, if you ask me. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)