Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Doom Patrol/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
Blocked on his main account for edit warring and calling proper edits a "vandalism" after getting blocked by . Now using this new account to restore his version and still calling proper edits a "vandalism".  

Both accounts have a habit of calling anything a "vandalism" they disgaree with.

A checkuser should be enough in this case. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I reverted the edit because it lacked proper sourcing. Wikipedia requires information to be neutral and verifiable. Reverting unsourced edits isn't vandalism. And calling vandalism 'vandalism' doesn't make me a second account of 'The Doom Patrol.' If there's a better term for vandalism, enlighten me. Roshan Dickwella (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I wouldn't be foolish enough to make such an edit on the same page just after being blocked. Merely one revert and using the term "vandalism" on a high-traffic page isn't sufficient grounds to initiate an SPI, let alone a "check-user." This amounts to harassment and privacy intrusion. On another note, please review the edit summaries,. It's unlikely that anyone other than Rzvas defends Rzvas' reverts as "proper edits".--The Doom Patrol (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * My bad, I thought you was the one who filed the case. I apologise. Roshan Dickwella (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * While Ratnahastin's comments at Sockpuppet investigations/Rzvas were not written here, they are directly relevant and this is an equally meritless filing. . DatGuyTalkContribs 15:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)