Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/6jdjdud8di/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This nondescript account has only ever made one edit on one talk page, on an article that 6jdjdud8di's has no involvement with. Shortly after softblocking Slu7ty for their username, 6jdjdud8di showed up on their talk page and made an inexplicable and bizarre edit to it. It could very well be nothing, but then again, it's suspicious enough that I'd probably err on the side of blocking first and asking questions later. I'm requesting a check as a better alternative to that. ~Swarm~ {sting} 21:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - What exactly is WP:ILLEGIT here?  Vanjagenije   (talk)  00:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I feel that the scenario of a user creating an undisclosed alt under a WP:DISRUPTNAME would be squarely within the purview of WP:GHBH. Of course, we can't typically catch a GHBH situation when the BH is immediately username-blocked, but pretending we could, I would presume that we would treat socks with a username that suggests an attempt to troll or disrupt the same as we would treat socks that do troll or disrupt&mdash;with ordinary sock blocks. That's the logic I would follow in blocking here, and I think it's pretty reasonable. As I said, I would already err on the side of discretionarily blocking under that rationale, which is why I'm requesting the check. I could be wrong, but if I am, I would have blocked the user in error, which is obviously not my goal here. Hope this makes sense. ~Swarm~  {sting} 01:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I am closing this investigation as there is neither strong evidence that these two accounts belong to the same person, nor strong evidence of WP:ILLEGIT behavior (even if they do).  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you at least address my argument? Like I said, I've already determined that this is a blockable situation, and I intend to block if a check can not be performed pending a good explanation for the behavior. I've provided a policy-based rationalization that I believe checks out, so if you don't think I should block, I'd like to hear your refutation of why I should not do so. ~Swarm~  {sting} 03:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC).
 * For the CU check to be allowed, strong evidence of socking is needed. In my opinion, this is not strong evidence. I never said that you shouldn't block them, I said that there is not enough evidence for sockpuppet investigation. If you are sure they are WP:ILLEGIT, block them, but don't expect to receive confirmation for block here.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  07:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)