Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Armegon/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Both Armegon and NoMagicSpells were frequent editors of, where an RfC in which the two were involved due to Armegon canvassing three specific users, one of whom was NoMagicSpells. They began with opposing views (i.e., Armegon preferred one option proposed in the RfC, while NoMagicSpells preferred another). As the discussion developed, both users repeatedly suggested changing the scope of the RfC.

First, NoMagicSpells suggested a revision to the option they endorsed, which Armegon supported albeit having categorically endorsed the other option. Next, NoMagicSpells suggested revising both options, which Armegon supported as well. Armegon then suggested another revision to both options, which NoMagicSpells supported. After they were told that their suggestions wouldn't be applied to the RfC but that said suggestions were taken, both users suggested opening another RfC to incorporate their views, seen here and here.

Finally, when NoMagicSpells was asked to categorically endorse one option without any revision, they completely went against their original stance and said that they were going to add their suggested revision to the article following a consensus, essentially saying, "I prefer one option, but I'd like to add this amendment to it. Without the amendment, I prefer the other option, but I'm going to add my amendment afterward anyway", which leaves the discussion with Armegon and NoMagicSpells categorically endorsing the same option.

Note: An ANI discussion about possible votestacking was started by an uninvolved user but was never addressed and therefore was archived here. KyleJoan talk 10:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I failed to mention that Armegon themselves previously stated that they would welcome a Checkuser investigation (i.e., I'm sure there's some method to narrow down who's a sock-puppet or not. I'm game for using it to clear my name.). Another thing I failed to point out was that NoMagicSpells only registered as a user on April 8 and that the Charlie's Angels (2019 film) RfC remains the only talk page discussion in which they have participated.  KyleJoan talk 22:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

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

I am not a sock puppet of Armegon. An editor can change their stance if new information comes to light. User KyleJoan suspects any other user of being a sock puppet when a vote goes against their POV.

Perhaps user KyleJoan needs an SPI too. Regarding the same article there was a “Marketing” section header earlier this year for this article that was removed by and unknown IP number here Twenty minutes later,  user KyleJoan, who has a history reverting vandals or editors with a different POV, creates a new header called “Theatrical” instead of challenging the previous edit. This suggests KyleJoan is either a resident of India or uses a VPN IP number or is a sock puppet for user Uncle Dick who was the editor prior to this edit. I hope this information helps. -- NoMagic Spellstalk 11:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
 
 * I'm not sure what to recommend here. There's so much weirdness going on related to Talk:Charlie's Angels (2019 film), it's hard to sort out.  This instersected with Sockpuppet investigations/Davefelmer, where a whole slew of User:ToeFungii-related socks were found.  And it has been suggested before that Armegon is a sock, but not enough evidence to CU them.  I agree that NoMagicSpells's behavior is a little odd, but I'm not seeing anything that screams "sock" at me.   I'm inclined to close with no action.  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I did see somethings on that talkpage that made me run some of the accounts on that talkpage, what I found was the (undisclosed) users I checked were ❌, and therefore I support your position of closing w/o action. I can explain further via email for clerk training purposes if you wish. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 10:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , agreed. But I also ran a check based on some stuff I saw. I also don't see enough here that would give us enough to go on without CU evidence. If more evidence comes to light the case can be refiled. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * No action taken, closing. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)