Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thomasfilbert/Archive

Thomasfilbert

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

07 August 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

Chaosxplagues (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.

Thomasfilbert (u t c m l b p d) created Secret Keeper (band). One of the band members is a Thomas Filbert.
Thomasfilbert then created Vratim (brand) about a company run by Thomas Filbert.
2018-07-31 is Thomasfilbert's last date of editing.
2018-08-05: Both articles are tagged with {{COI}} etc. (diff, diff) and Thomasfilbert receives a COI notification in Special:Diff/852822849/853574354.
2018-08-06: The account Chaosxplagues (u t c m l b p d) is created and makes their one and only edit to Secret Keeper (band) including removing the {{COI}} template. Sam Sailor 07:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Richwales: Possibly nothing, turn it off. Sam Sailor 04:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- My gut feeling when Rich asked was that Chaosxplagues is Thomasfilbert avoiding scrutiny, and since they have no other interests here, it is unlikely that there be sleepers. Why this case should not be clear based on behavioural evidence is abstruse. Sam Sailor 01:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - To editor Richwales: Why is this case being "closed without action"? Sam Sailor 02:21, 5 September 2018 (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

Clerk note: Could you explain what, specifically, you believe may be found here via a CU check that is not already evident from behavioural evidence of the two accounts? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Declining CU per Sam Sailor's followup comment. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Richwales: You sure about this? With only one edit from Chaosxplagues, I don't think there's enough to warrant admin action on behaviour alone, but it looks suspicious enough to warrant a check in my opinion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Sam Sailor, the user who opened this SPI, basically withdrew it, and I saw (and still see) no reason to second-guess him. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Richwales: In that case, could you please either act on the behaviour or close the case. We're clearly not going to get any new behavioural evidence here. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Clerk note: ~~Closing without action, per above discussion.~~ — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Clerk note: I'm reopening this SPI so that another clerk or admin can evaluate the strength of the behavioural evidence. I will not return to this SPI; someone else will need to decide what to do here. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sir Sputnik that there's enough here for me to endorse a CU but not enough in that one edit to block without technical evidence. Because a CheckUser has declined to check in this case (and we generally don't endorse checks after a CU declines), the only course of action seems to be to close without action unless Richwales withdraws the CU decline. If the CU decline remains, I will close without action in the coming days. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I am not a CU. If a CU (or another clerk) wants to reverse my declining the CU request, they may feel free to do so. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- D'oh. My bad – just gonna point you thataway Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to endorse because I feel the one edit made by Chaosxplagues ([1]) is sufficient evidence to check but not to block on its own. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed. I blocked the master for 3 days and the sock indefinitely. I forgot to tag it as a CU block, but then I figured it doesn't really matter. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]