Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BrightOrion/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

After BrightOrion was blocked for a week for disruptive editing a brand new editor, Pegasi lux, showed up and made the exact same edits to AA battery.


 * BrightOrion


 * Pegasi Lux   Notfrompedro (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Before they reverted it, Pegasi lux accidentally admitted who they are by talking about an IP report against them (speaking of this report) which was actually filed against BrightOrion. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

:I felt: that in the interests of fairness, I should add my $0.02 worth. I figured that this was an awfully stupid and all too obvious thing to do. But then I remembered a previous sock case that I got dragged into, which was proven to be a Joe job by a prolific imitator of other accounts. It was so similar that it had an obviously similar account name ‘BrightPegasus’ but in Latin just to disguise it a little bit. But the other common factor was the ‘accidental’ admission of guilt. That case too had a post accidentally being penned from the ‘master’s’ point of view but actually sent from the ‘sock’ account. Quickly reverted and a post from the sock badly reworded substituted.


 * My opinion, for what it is worth, is that BrightOrion is not guilty (and checkuser seems to bear this out). I will leave it to the admins to figure out the architect of this deception (!!) 85.255.237.114 (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Struck. Edit filter won’t let me revert it, by why should I be so charitable when he tried to accuse me (and others),

. 85.255.237.114 (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2021 (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

 * Blocked per WP:DUCK, though a checkuser would be good to make sure this wasn't a Joe job. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * - I share OhNoitsJamie's concern that this might not be what it seems. I don't particularly want to elaborate publicly for beans reasons. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ as far as checkuser evidence goes...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * - Per email exchange with Oshwah. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , lets have a gander - TheresNoTime 😺 19:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've given this a good look, and I agree that the two accounts are ❌. They are significantly different, and there does not appear to be any proxy use which could explain this. - TheresNoTime 😺 19:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Closing without further action since the CU result indicates a joe job and is already indeffed.  Blablubbs (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)