Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Elite spark/Archive

12 July 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Each of the parties involved provide the exact same argument to keep the KPassC article on the wiki. Both, at one point or another, used the argument that blocking them was a "violation of human rights." Now, does this seem unusual to you? Each also accuses the party that "interferes" with it of "censorship" that instead moves in a fashion that Wikipedia encourages. The IP even goes to the extent of calling the nomination for deletion a "witch hunt" and is implying that people that did not create the page should get lost (this was mirrored by Elite spark saying that editors should "partake legitimately or get lost"). The accuses an admin of libel and Elite spark accused an editor of being a Nazi just for disagreeing with them. They also each show a common writing style and short-temper, spamming as vandals when they are presented with a superior argument that contradicts their point of view. Therefore, appear to be the same person using multiple identities to gain an edge in an argument. 155blue (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

As per WP:DUCK, the IP's vote has already been discounted from the deletion discussion of KPassC. After was indefinitely blocked by Barek,  started up to continue Elite's work. Since we cannot reveal the IP of a user, the Checkuser request was declined. However, there is more than enough proof to say that the two are the same. . 23:20 13 July 2013

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

 * - Fulfilling this CU request would result in publicly identifying an account's IP address. Behavior can be used here. Rschen7754 05:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * An admin has already blocked this IP for block evasion. Closing. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  23:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)