Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Donkey Kong Fanatic/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

E to the Pi times i has declared connections to Donkey Kong Fanatic and E^pi*i batch.

E to the Pi times i and Monolithica have very similar interests in the same maintenance tasks as evidenced by: —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 06:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Bots/Requests for approval/E^pi*i batch
 * User:E to the Pi times i/Maintenance
 * Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser#User:Monolithica
 * These aren't common maintenance interest. A new account, Monolithica, with the interest in doing the same things as E to the Pi times i seems very unlikely. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 16:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

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

When you link to Special:Permalink/833541104 as evidence that we have "[unlikely] similar interests", one must note that on the requests page, I said "One can also see the backlog of issues I've been collecting" (diff; this talk is also relevant). Monolithica themselves said "I'd only just come across those (incorrect) examples (here) in the last few hours." (diff). The "similar interests" evidence is neither sufficient nor very convincing to support the sock puppet allegations. E to the Pi times i ( talk  |  contribs ) 23:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Pardon this late comment from a non-admin, but I do not see the behavioral sockpuppet evidence for and  convincing. While Sro23 has pointed out the a few edits which have some relation, if one looks through the majority of Monolithica's edits, they have been general maintenance: link disambiguation, tagging, and copy editing, none of which are disruptive. R. Anthony has made edits to the narrow topics of human rights and space and most of their edits are userspace. Unless you have a specific case where they've exhibited specific similar arguments or behavior to Altman on a specific page, I think it's premature to jump on them as supposed Altman socks, and I find this quick indefinite block to be biting them. E to the Pi times i ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 17:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * First three are obviously legitimate alternative accounts (clearly explained at user:E_to_the_Pi_times_i). No evidence provided regarding . Case closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Monolithica is ❌ to the other accounts. However, Monolithica is ✅ from and  to . Based on my own behavioral analysis, I would add the two accounts to the Altman SPI, but further confirmation by a clerk or someone familiar with the Altman case wouldn't be amiss. I'm foregoing any blocks until the analysis is complete.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I concur. Both accounts demonstrate interest in human rights, aeronautics, as well as the basic grammar copyediting, similar to other socks in the archive. Sro23 (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I've blocked the two accounts without tags. Please add them to the Altman case (doesn't need a merge) and tag them. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)