Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/No Great Shaker/Archive

No Great Shaker

No Great Shaker (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

12 June 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

UrgeDecca (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

Suspected unclean start following NGS' retirement, egregious personal attack (RD'd, admins only), and ensuing 72 hour block. There is a possibility that this is indeed two relatives, but the timing suggests otherwise, CU may be able to make that distinction, and I'm therefore asking for a check.

UD was created a few weeks after NGS' last retirement in 2021 and then had a significant dip in activity after their return
UD claims to be NGS' nephew
UD retired very shortly after NGS and "[withdrew] wasted effort" [1], only to return a few days later
Shared interest in 1885–86 FA Cup and 1886 FA Cup Final, edit strings are always sequential, which is more consistent with switching between accounts than with simultaneous editing
Significant UBX overlap between UD's revamped userpage and NGS'
"edition" as a summary [2][3] --Blablubbs (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Correction – son in law, not nephew, of course. --Blablubbs (talk) 22:09, 12 June 2022 (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

CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk per above. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed CU evidence strongly indicates this is the same person and not just relatives sharing a connection. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think any CLEANSTART argument here is invalidated by the fact that they've been doing this for quite some time, and that they've been lying about it in an attempt to evade scrutiny. While NGS' latest retirement could be said to not initially have been under a cloud, the vandalism changes that (and frankly, I wouldn't have been surprised if that on its own had earned them an indefinite block). I'd also argue that a return on their main account after the block expired would have very likely led to a formal discussion about their conduct. I'm indefinitely blocking both, because I don't think NGS should resume editing with any account without explaining themselves first. Blocked and tagged. Closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]