Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DasReichenz/Archive

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

09 October 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

• Dannis243 (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

Imo very obvious/childish "newbie" sock created for revert warring. Suspicious "Nazi" business.. User repeatedly edit-warring to introduce the Nazi party symbols on Nazism templates (against talkpage consensus) [1][2][3], etc. Having been previously rejected in this, he used "DasReichenz" to continue the slow edit war on {{Nazism}} [4] and {{Nazism sidebar}} [5]. Also note that the userpage redirects to the talkpage on both accounts, with all talkpage posts removed. Same grammar errors as well... Based on the "standardized" appearance of the accounts, this is almost certainly just the tip of the iceberg. Please check, and preferably block. The accounts are disruptive (to say he least), and are engaged in long-term edit-warring campaigns. -- Director (talk) 12:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: The diffs are of two users reverting others - to introduce the same change [6][7]. They support each other. For further evidence check the history of the sidebar: Dannis dislikes the simple swastika and keeps trying to replace it with either the flag or the emblem of the Nazi Party. They both speak in broken English. DasReichenz on arrival exclaims that now the "consensus" is against the swastika, when before Dannis was overruled by consensus. But the clincher is that both their talkpages are always blanked (with neither having created a userpage). Trust me, this isn't my first report - its the same guy. No question. Please check him? -- Director (talk) 15:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

PLEASE READ THIS! so this is the thank one gets for supporting one user, so i support director https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Nazism&oldid=681141456 and he gives me this is return, wow! i olny inserted my version when i thought directors version was being removed by consensus, please read the edit summaries i for example said "if we are going to use the eagle and this section is about ideology then lets use the Parteiadler instead of Reichgadler" but i was supporting director with his simple swastika design if you also look closer i wanted the parteiadler not reichadler like DasReichenz, i also tried the nazi flag that was not supported by either users but i did not edit war about it, the first time i ever heard about this misguided "DasReichenz" user is when he reverted me

anyways what a breach of WP:GOODFAITH can someone please do something about director Dannis243 (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

• @Director: The only diffs you have are of the two users reverting others. You need diffs showing that they support each other. In at least one instance in Template:Nazism sidebar I noticed DasReichenz revert Dannis243.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Clerk declined - I don't think there is enough evidence here for anything. Case filer presented some diffs that show two users making identical edits, but he failed to present diffs where those two reverted each other (like [8] and [9]). Vanjagenije (talk) 10:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Like Vanja, I don't find the evidence compelling enough to determine that there were violations of sockpuppetry policy. Closing with no action. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]