Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D3bug l0gic/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

On the fifteenth D3bug l0gic was indeffed for NOTHERE. This was largely because of their attempts to insert ANTIFA groups as being domestic terrorists into various articles. Now, three days later, a new account appears, solely to prosecute the same complaint using the same reasoning. As you can see here. I mean, it could be a joe-jobber, it's so obvious, but that would require a checkuser too, so either way I think it's a good idea to have a look-see. Simonm223 (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC) Simonm223 (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2018 (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

 * I'm not a full clerk, so I'll leave this to one to decide, but I would endorse decline the CU check request. There are some similarities with wording between this edit by D3bug l0gic and this edit by Cipherre, but not enough subtle similarities for me to justify a block based off of behavioral evidence. I agree that the talk page discussion and arguments are related to the same thing overall. However, I think there's enough information and probable suspicions given the edits here to be within the discretion for a CU check. other editors have also added the same (and similar) discussion to the talk page as well, which makes a comparison between these two edits no longer appear very unique. Hence, I don't feel that there's enough here to endorse any further action or investigation given the page history and other similar discussions by other users. Please ping me and let me know if the SPI clerk disagrees and why; I'd like to gain more experience and find out what I missed if I am wrong... thanks :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   15:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * My original thought was the correct one; I put too much weight onto the fact that other accounts also have added similar discussions and changed my original comment here. I didn't take a moment to realize that both of these users jumped straight into this issue. With this in mind, no technical or behavioral evidence exists to the level where a block would have been justified right-out, but the similarities and this fact are definitely enough to be within a CU's discretion to run a check.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   07:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The two accounts are ❌. Closing. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)