Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kingdamian1/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Similar username (both refer to themselves as kings), similar interests, and left a barnstar on indefinitely blocked user Kingdamian1's talk page. This user socks on other wikis (admittedly and per very strong CheckUser evidence), so I wouldn't be surprised in the least if he does it here too. (I don't think anyone can claim WP:OUTING on that because he has openly referenced his off-wiki activities on this wiki). PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 14:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC) Update: Apparently Kingdamian1 thinks this is funny. Perhaps we should consider removing talk page access, especially if these accounts are confirmed socks by CheckUser? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 16:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * As the admin who blocked Kingdamian1 I had his talk page on my watchlist and so saw the edits referred to here. Of course it raised my suspiscions, but upon further examination I did not find the behavior all that siliar and did not run a CU myself. I don’t think there’s a real case here, and I don’t see sufficient reason to revoke talk page access either, users are allowed to comment on accusations against them even when blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * To clarify, at the time I suggested removing talk page access, the accused had not made the last two edits to his talk page. At that time, it seemed he was more interested in posting nonsense to mock the process than defending himself, but he made two edits in defense (albeit uncivil ones) since then that I agree should be allowed as long as he doesn't get too out of hand with incivility. PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages)Have a blessed day. 19:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

How utterly ridiculous. This is obviously a bad faith attack, with salty editors getting mad that multiple people criticise them. There is absolutely zero evidence other than the fact we both have “king” in our username, which is really no evidence at all. Put forward something concrete or shut up. King Flib (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Telling me to "shut up" does not convince me that you are not the same person as Kingdamian1 because that's something that I would absolutely expect from him from my on-wiki and off-wiki dealings with him, and furthermore, if you are not the same as him, why would you put a barnstar on the talk page of someone that has been indefinitely blocked? Especially considering you are claiming Wikipedia editors are "biased," which is the same exact terminology Kingdamian1 uses. As for concrete evidence, that's what CheckUser is for; I am convinced there is enough similarities to run a check (though apparently Beeblebrox humbly disagrees), but I wouldn't be convinced enough to request a block without CheckUser intervention. Does still remain unconvinced of the similarities between these two users, after this post from King Flib? Perhaps we need a third opinion on this.  PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages)Have a blessed day. 21:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * With respect to, this is . I don't put much weight into this particular username similarity, but the editor interaction tool shows that the only page these two have ever edited in common is Britain First, wherein both users tried to change the organization's descriptor from "fascist" first to "far-right" then to "ultranationalist", against reliable sources and against consensus, and then both complained both on the talk page and on user Binksternet's talk page. That sequence of events is a remarkable coincidence for genuinely unrelated accounts. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌. Closing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)