Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CombatWombat42/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets

• A50000 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

Both have been involved with edit warring at Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over the labeling of the USSR as a "socialist state" rather than a "communist state". In particular, both referred to North Korea in edit summaries (CombatWombat42, A50000). The A50000 account has been blocked multiple times in the past for disruption on articles regarding communism and socialism. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Ryulong is pissed at me because I disagreed with his methods at Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I don't think agreeing with User:A50000 on one page warrants a check user. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for this "In particular, both referred to North Korea in edit summaries" that may acutaly be the least logical reason for requesting a check user I have ever seen. User:A50000 saw the argument I was making and used the same one. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You both added the same content using the same rationale. It's a little odd.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I added back A50000's comment becuase no one gave resonable rational for reverting him, with the argument that the name of the country and its political system had no relation to eachother. Then another user deleted that content with a resonable explination, so I left it alone. A50000 came back, saw my argument and used it to re-re-add it back, using my argument. you then decided to file this case without even looking at the series of events. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well if that's truly the case (which technical evidence will show) then nothing has to be done.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What now? Are you still confident you are right?CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like an apoligy for the accuzation of "edit warring", or proof that I engaged in edit warring. CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You restored content removed by another editor. That's still edit warring. And all that's happened here is that no technical evidence will be sought.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, you've pretty much proved yoruself dishonest and arrogant so you have fun with that. CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are taking all of this way too personally.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note.

•  Clerk declined - The accusations are not credible given their very long edit histories and only one apparent piece of evidence. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• That's enough, closing this. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

• Rcq1981 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 88.104.31.21 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 50.74.152.2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

The Indiggo page has been the subject just now of back-to-back conforming edits by both editors, minutes apart.[1][2] One of the editors was just newly created (and this is its only edit ever). The article itself is currently at an AfD, hotly contested by one of the editors. The IPs were part of the hotly discussed delrev, and it is odd for IPs with few edits to end up at delrev. And each IP has been blocked more than once this month. Epeefleche (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I just want to say that this is a totaly fucking ridiculous use of a checkusers time. Just because User:Epeefleche disagree's with my opinion dosn't mean I am, or have socks, and that it filed this case makes me think it was retalitory. CombatWombat42 (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:DoRD, why would you even accept this case? The interaction between me and the supposed socks is extreemly flimsy. I worry that this is an abuse of checkuser privilages. CombatWombat42 (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The presented diffs caused me to have reasonable suspicion. If you disagree with my action, however, please feel free to file a grievance with the

Audit subcommittee. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Named accounts are  Unrelated.  No comment with respect to IP address(es), except to point out that their WHOIS information clearly shows them to be in very different locations. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 05:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing with no action per CU results. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]