Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Cool3 2

Note regarding sockpuppetry: this RfA has been voted on by three users with under a dozen edits -- Y-y-yoda (vote), David-wright (vote), Vandal buster 288 (vote) -- one of which has the same userpage styling as Cool3's previous RfA nominator (compare User:ErnestIsTheMan with User:Vandal buster 288). ~ PseudoSudo 23:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support throwing out all three of the suspicious votes, while we must never "bite newcomers", no one could possibly create an account and stumble on RfA a minute later. There were sockpuppet concerns in the Zappa.jake RfA as well, so I would recomend performing a checkuser that compares the Zappa.jake socks to these three. Unfortunately, this case does not appear to meet the checkuser guidelines. Nonetheless, as one was performed for the Zappa.jake RfA, I feel that one would be justified here. Cool3 00:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: All 3 were indef blocked. --Rory096 04:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When a case is crystal clear - like this one is I don't see a need for chackuser. I'm removing all votes by obvious socks of a known vandal. (there is 4 now) Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prompted by a comment on WT:RFA: for the record, I note that the aforementioned userpage styling is common among new users and retract any connection I may have implied regarding the candidate's involvement in the matter. ~ PseudoSudo 19:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone who happens to still be watching this page, I have opened a new RfA, and you may wish to participate. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cool3 3. Cool3 (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]