Offend ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)

21 March 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

• KB3035583 ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Both appears to already know how to fight vandalism once the accounts are created. INeed Support ^:3 23:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC) reply

@ L235: Here some diffs for you then.

• [1] (by KB3035583). This user was created on March 21 at 19:04 UTC, and literally around 30 minutes later starts doing some anti-vandal work.
• [2] (by Offend). This shows something similar too. This user was created on March 13 at 15:40 UTC and literally an hour later the user started some anti-vandalism work.

Also,

• [3] (by KB3035583). This user created the userpage at the creation date.
• [4] (by Offend). This user also created the userpage at the creation date.

Notice how both of the userpages has them introducing themselves. INeed Support ^:3 02:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC) reply

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

•  Additional information needed - @ INeedSupport: In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:

1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this.

• If your sole evidence is that both users know how to revert vandalism, I think you're going to need some more than that. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC) reply
• I'm returning this to curequest. I would personally decline here but I know CUs who may well decide to check. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC) reply
•  Declined - there is insufficient evidence to suggest a check is warranted. Closing with no action. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 19:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC) reply