Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nbaka is a joke/Archive

Evidence submitted by The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous
User:Nbaka_is_a_joke was blocked for having an inappropriate user name.. He was OKd to use User:Basil_rock IF he agreed to conditions. He did not agree and approval of fresh start was not granted. Nonetheless, he is now active as Basil rock. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Auto-generated every six hours.
 * User compare report

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

I did agree and than was blocked on my own talk page. BTW no action was taken against the administrator. What action is going to be taken against the person who started the edit war. Perhaps if poster did resort to procedural abuses we we could get back to editing.Basil rock (talk) 03:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * I don't see the merits to do a check. User was blocked for username violation so a different username, which now conforms with our policy, was created and used. There is no "block evasion" nor any mention of fresh start in the talk page. We need to assume good faith and don't bite newbies because we cannot expect the user to know our username policy before their account is created. OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This was not a CU request. Per user talk page, subject said he would become BR, but he refused to meet set conditions. Admins denied approval to create the BR account. This is block evasion. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Tangential to this SPI is another WP:ANI regarding Nbaka reemergence as the sock Basil rock, which confirms my assertion and reestablishes that my reading was closer and more accurate then that of admin OhanaUnited. see. They are trying to solicit concessions from the user, but one admin has maintained is POV pushing, and another editor agrees that bock evasion is being practiced. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If someone is permanently blocked from editing simply because they chose a bad username, then that's really biting newbies and not giving a chance for someone to correct himself. Furthermore, according to you, he self-identified in the talk page, which far exceeded the minimum requirement in WP:CLEANSTART. Based on these two technicalities, you can't call that as evading block or avoiding scrutiny. A word of caution, you yourself is attracting attention as an editor wishing to silence your opponent. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you kindly show the where blocked users to open new accounts as newbies when the user name are at issue. I truly think none exists except in your imagination, but I of course would rather be shown to be in error. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me remind you again that the only reason the previous account blocked is because of username issue. Since the username block will not be lifted, editors have to use a new username that follows our username policy. Right now you're engaging in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear a SPI case is not going to be useful here. Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents is the appropriate venue to handle this matter. TN X Man  03:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

05 January 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The recently created "Nbaka is a joke1" was clearly a sock puppet of "Nbaka is a joke" and was recently blocked. However, Basil Rock is the same editor and has somehow slipped through the cracks. This is not just a suspicion, they stated they were the same person and were editing under the name Basil Rock when Nbaka is a joke was blocked as an offensive username over a year ago. See that SPI. See also, this administrator comment on Basil Rock's talk page.

Additionally, it is clear by the edit history that they are the same person with the same ax to grind on the same pages. See this comment by Nbaka is a joke1, and then this comment a few days later by Basil Rock. Loonymonkey (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2012 (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

 * Maybe they finally realized that they need to change usernames. This issue is unrelated to their edit behavior at this point, so I'm closing. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait, but the same person was editing under two accounts at the same time in violation of a previous block. Why is this excusable? --Loonymonkey (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the block reason given for the second account: "user is hell-bent on trying to keep this name no matter how many times it is explained that they can't)". So yes, I'm probably assuming a lot of good faith here. These accounts didn't really edit at the same time, though. Basil edited in November 2010, and then nothing. Joke1 then edited in December 2011/Jan 2012 and was blocked, and then Basil became active again. So yes, they jumped from one to another recently - but that may have been because of the username block. I just don't think blocking them is fully justified, is all. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)