The Doom Patrol
- The Doom Patrol ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
05 April 2024
Suspected sockpuppets
- Roshan Dickwella ( 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 • SPI Tools
Blocked on his main account for edit warring and calling proper edits a "vandalism" after getting blocked by Bbb23. [1] Now using this new account to restore his version and still calling proper edits a "vandalism". [2] [3]
Both accounts have a habit of calling anything a "vandalism" they disgaree with. [4] [5] [6] [7]
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 [8] [9], [10] [11]. 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
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rzvas were not written here, they are directly relevant and this is an equally meritless filing.
Closing without action.
DatGuy
Talk
Contribs 15:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
The Doom Patrol
- The Doom Patrol ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
05 April 2024
Suspected sockpuppets
- Roshan Dickwella ( 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 • SPI Tools
Blocked on his main account for edit warring and calling proper edits a "vandalism" after getting blocked by Bbb23. [1] Now using this new account to restore his version and still calling proper edits a "vandalism". [2] [3]
Both accounts have a habit of calling anything a "vandalism" they disgaree with. [4] [5] [6] [7]
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 [8] [9], [10] [11]. 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
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rzvas were not written here, they are directly relevant and this is an equally meritless filing.
Closing without action.
DatGuy
Talk
Contribs 15:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)