Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Officialdez/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Main account added various unsourced stats to several pages. They then were reverted by an admin (User:Discospinster), and then another account was created closely resembling the same admin's username (User:Discopinster) and disrupted the talkpages of those pages, complaining about how their stats are the correct ones that the main account was attempting to add to the pages. 2601:1C0:9:2FBD:9D13:11E:F428:2F80 (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Moved to WP space per IP request. RandomCanadian (talk &#124; contribs) 18:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * , I thought only usernames close enough to trigger antispoof should be dropped, as unblocked IPs would have been able to create the user outside of ACC anyway. I apologise if that's not the case. I'll be more careful around usernames similar to established users in the future. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Officialdez and Discopinster were created per ACC requests 291082 and 291121, respectively. A checkuser with tool access may wish to view the relevant technical data. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for looking into this case. As the original filer of this SPI back in May, I will comment that I certainly agree that blocking an underlying range serves no purpose right now. However, blocking the main account (User:Officialdez) may be necessary since the technical data was a "likely" match, not to mention that their edits were purely disruptive. 2601:1C0:C:EE88:8426:2861:3DFE:79E9 (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * , Discopinster is an obvious impersonation sock of an established user, so why did you allow this account to be created? Sro23 (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Before things go stale. Behavior is possible, but not conclusive. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ACC reports that both requests came from 127.0.0.1, at a guess, that means they are . The two users are to one another, there is a range that can plausibly be blocked, but at the present level of disruption (two accounts, no activity in the past three weeks) I'd rather not. ST47 (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm convinced that Discopinster is not the new user they claim to be, but given that they're already blocked for another reason, I don't see any point in going there. As for Officialdez, yeah, probably by behavior and the probably from CU really should add up to a block, but given that they haven't edited in a month, there's no actual ongoing disruption that needs fixing.  So, I just issued them a uw-agf-sock warning and I'll leave it at that. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)