Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lagiadagiapponese/Archive

Lagiadagiapponese

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

08 September 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Midoruccia1988 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) ( Clerk note: original case name)
Ujimasacoco (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.

Creation of Draft:bitbank. same content as with previously deleted, based on the edit summaries. – robertsky (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2021 (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

This case is being reviewed by Tamzin as part of their training as a clerk. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference. You may pose any questions or concerns either on their talk page or on this page.

Clearly the same user, or someone closely-enough associated that we can treat them as one. The only question is whether they knew they were violating policy. User:Jimfbleak indeffed Lagiadagiapponese (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) a month ago as a sock of Midoruccia1988, but I don't see any block message or warning on either user's talk page, so we can't say for sure that Midoruccia1988 is aware that this happened, which means I can't recommend an indef as I normally would for second-offense socking. Awaiting administrative action:
- Indefinite block for Ujimasacoco.
- Two-week block for Midoruccia1988, or just indef them for being a promo SPA and likely UPE.

CU

Clerk declined, since behavioral evidence is sufficient to establish the connection. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 06:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They all seem to only be here only to brute force the same promotional article into mainspace despite repeated declines, rejections and speedies, which is highly disruptive and grounds for an indefinite block on its own; the use of three accounts and different titles adds evasion of scrutiny to the mix. Accordingly, I'm going with indefs. Blocked but awaiting tags. Back to you, Tamzin. --Blablubbs (talk) 09:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Blablubbs. Tagged. Closing. Noting for the record that Lagia had edits on Commons, which I'll kick over to a Commons admin. Since it's just the one I won't ask for a lock, but keeping that in mind for the future. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 09:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tamzin: Are you sure this case is filed under the correct master? --Blablubbs (talk) 09:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Oh. So it ain't. Fixed. (Hope I did it right!) Thanks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 09:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  @Tamzin: You did, though there is one more thing that you usually need to do when you move a case with already-tagged socks to a different master. --Blablubbs (talk) 09:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Ah, right right right. Let's see if I get the tagging right here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 09:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Yep, all good now . --Blablubbs (talk) 11:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]