Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Doom Patrol: Difference between revisions
→Suspected sockpuppets: Reply |
Comment, marking case as closed (using spihelper.js) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
{{SPIpriorcases}} |
{{SPIpriorcases}} |
||
===05 April 2024=== |
===05 April 2024=== |
||
{{SPI case status| |
{{SPI case status|close}} |
||
====Suspected sockpuppets==== |
====Suspected sockpuppets==== |
||
{{sock list|1=Roshan Dickwella|tools_link=yes}}<!-- Add more accounts or IPs to this template as needed --> |
{{sock list|1=Roshan Dickwella|tools_link=yes}}<!-- Add more accounts or IPs to this template as needed --> |
||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
====<big>Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</big>==== |
====<big>Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</big>==== |
||
* While Ratnahastin's comments at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rzvas]] were not written here, they are directly relevant and this is an equally meritless filing. {{cwa}}. [[User:DatGuy|DatGuy]]<sup>[[User talk:DatGuy|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/DatGuy|Contribs]]</sub> 15:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. --> |
----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. --> |
||
Revision as of 15:34, 10 April 2024
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
– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.
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. DatGuyTalkContribs 15:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
