Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser: Difference between revisions

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Outstanding requests: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Alexandrababelove
→Outstanding requests: Moving to IP check section
Line 4: Line 4:
==Outstanding requests==
==Outstanding requests==
<!-- ### Add new cases to the top of the list, directly below this line. Thanks! ### -->
<!-- ### Add new cases to the top of the list, directly below this line. Thanks! ### -->
{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Alexandrababelove}}
----
{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/LAz17}}
{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/LAz17}}
----
----

Revision as of 01:24, 16 January 2009


    Read this first

    This is the place to request sockpuppet checks and other investigations requiring access to the Checkuser privilege. Possible alternatives are listed below.

    Requests likely to be accepted

    Code Situation Solution, requirements
    A Blatant attack or vandalism accounts, need IP block Submit new section at #Requests for IP check, below
    B Evading blocks, bans and remedies issued by arbitration committee Submit case subpage, including link to closed arb case
    C Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism with many incidents Submit case subpage, including diffs
    D Vote fraud, closed vote, fraud affects outcome Submit case subpage, including link to closed vote
    E 3RR violation using sockpuppets Submit case subpage, including diffs of violation
    F Evading blocks, bans and remedies issued by community Submit case subpage, including link to evidence of remedy
    G Does not fit above, but you believe check needed Submit case subpage, briefly summarize and justify

    Requests likely to be rejected

    Situation Solution
    Obvious, disruptive sock puppet Block, no checkuser needed
    Disruptive "throwaway" account used only for a few edits Block, no checkuser needed
    Checkuser on yourself to "prove your innocence" Such requests are rarely accepted, please do not ask
    Related to ongoing arbitration case Request checkuser on the arbitration case pages
    Vote fraud, ongoing vote Wait until vote closes before listing, or post at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets
    Vote fraud, closed vote, did not affect outcome List at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets
    Other disruption of articles List at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets
    Open proxy, IP address already known List at Wikipedia:WikiProject Open proxies
    You want access to the checkuser tool yourself Contact the Arbitration Committee, but such access is granted rarely


    When submitting a request

    • If submitting a new case subpage, use the inputbox below; if adding to an existing case subpage, see WP:RFCU/P#Repeat requests.
    • Choose the code letter that best fits your request. Provide evidence such as diff links as required or requested. Note that some code letters inherently require specific evidence.
    • When listing suspected accounts or IP addresses, use the {{checkuser}} or {{checkip}} templates. Please do not use this template in a section header.
    • You may add your request to the top of the #Outstanding requests section, by adding {{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/CASENAMEHERE}}. If you do not, clerks should check for pages in Category:Checkuser requests to be listed and will do this for you.
    • Sign your request.


    After submitting a request

    Privacy violation?

    this header: view • edit

    File a Checkuser Request
    Cases are created on subpages of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case.
    If you require help or advice, ask at Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser.

    If a case subpage already exists, edit the existing page instead, either adding to the currently open section (if the case is not yet archived) or adding a new section to the top (if the case has been archived). When editing an existing case, be sure to list it here or add Category:Checkuser requests to be listed to the subpage.

    If creating a new case subpage, add the name of the main account (or "puppetmaster", not the sockpuppet!) in the box below. Leave out the "User:" prefix. Do not remove the text in the box, add the name to the end only (that is, append the name to the existing text). Then press "Request a checkuser" and you will be taken to a page where you can fill out the request.

    Example: if you want to request a checkuser on User:John Doe, enter the text:
    Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/John Doe

    <inputbox> type=create editintro=Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Inputbox/Header preload=Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Inputbox/Sample default=Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ buttonlabel=Request a checkuser bgcolor=#F8FCFF width=50 </inputbox>

    Indicators and templates   (v  · e)
    These indicators are used by Checkusers, SPI clerks and other patrolling users, to allow easier at-a-glance reading of their notes, actions and comments.
    Case decisions:
     IP blocked  {{IPblock}}  Tagged  {{Stagged}}
     Blocked but awaiting tags  {{Sblock}}  Not possible  {{Impossible}}
     Blocked and tagged  {{Blockedandtagged}}  Blocked without tags  {{Blockedwithouttags}}
     No tags  {{No tags}}  Blocked and tagged. Closing.  {{Blockedtaggedclosing}}
    Information:
     Additional information needed  {{MoreInfo}}  Deferred  {{Deferred}}
    information Note:  {{TakeNote}}  In progress  {{Inprogress}}
    Clerk actions:
     Clerk assistance requested:  {{Clerk Request}}  Clerk note:  {{Clerk-Note}}
     Delisted  {{Delisted}}  Relisted  {{Relisted}}
     Clerk declined  {{Decline}}  Clerk endorsed  {{Endorse}}
    Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention  {{Selfendorse}} CheckUser requested  {{CURequest}}
    Specific to CheckUser:
     Confirmed  {{Confirmed}} Red X Unrelated  {{Unrelated}}
     Confirmed with respect to the named user(s). no No comment with respect to IP address(es).  {{Confirmed-nc}}
     Technically indistinguishable  {{Technically indistinguishable}}
     Likely  {{Likely}}  Unlikely  {{Unlikely}}
     Possible  {{Possible}}  Inconclusive  {{Inconclusive}}
    no Declined  {{Declined}} no Unnecessary  {{Unnecessary}}
     Stale (too old)  {{StaleIP}} no No comment  {{Nocomment}}
    crystal ball CheckUser is not a crystal ball  {{Crystalball}} fish CheckUser is not for fishing  {{Fishing}}
     CheckUser is not magic pixie dust  {{Pixiedust}} magic eight ball The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says:  {{8ball}}
     Endorsed by a checkuser  {{Cu-endorsed}}  Check declined by a checkuser  {{Cudecline}}
     Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely)  {{possilikely}}


    Outstanding requests

    Soft redirect to:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LAz17
    This page is a soft redirect.

    LAz17

    request links: view • edit • links • history • watch
    Filed: 15:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


    Soft redirect to:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bubblesmcfuglyguy
    This page is a soft redirect.

    Bubblesmcfuglyguy

    request links: view • edit • links • history • watch
    Filed: 14:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Supporting evidence: Requesting check of two probably new socks. Another confirmed sock, Mcfuglyofbubbles, appeared between these two, all doing the same types of edits and primarily focusing on the Kanon Wakeshima article. Finding and blocking the underlying IP, if possible, would also be good. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Khalsaburg

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

    Populated account categories: confirmed

    For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Khalsaburg/Archive.

    Chellaney

    request links: view • edit • links • history • watch
    Filed: 05:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


    While the blatant vandalism from Harshray continues, another IP 59.178.176.46 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) has appeared on the same article (forgot to log on?). I'm adding this IP to the list as well to check the possibility. --Roadahead ★ 20:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Likely that Chellaney, Harshray and the IP are the same user. Very  Unlikely that LegalEagle86 is involved. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 15:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Clerk note: blocked the users indef (except LegalEagle86), the IPs for a week. -- lucasbfr talk 10:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In email, HR asserts he is a colleague of C, not a sock. I decided to believe him and set the block on HR to 24h (for 3RR). I've left the C account alone, err, though it doesn't make sense for it to be blocked as a sock of the other if the other isn't also blocked. Ah well William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Bill, in that case HR is meatpuppet of C because HR is deleting over and over again - the same sourced content and from the same article. --Roadahead ★ 17:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sleepydre

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

    Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

    For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sleepydre/Archive.

    User:Shane91c

    request links: view • edit • links • history • watch
    Filed: 21:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


    • Supporting evidence: Possible Sock Puppet used by Shane91c. This User has Resently Vandalised using Scurless and the account is now blocked for 1 month. I know Shane91c in person and belive that shane91c might be a "Good hand, bad hand" account. I know shane91c's full name and both account names seem strangly the similar to his real name. Arctic Fox 21:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Clerk note: Scurless's edits seem to be targeting Arctic Fox. -- lucasbfr talk 09:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Both accounts Edits are targeting my user. Arctic Fox 15:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Additional information needed. Could you provide some diffs of the two accounts attacking your account? [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 00:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I Will get round to finding the Difs When i get back from college. Bit busy at the moment. Please don't close the case yet. Arctic Fox 10:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Scurless Difs, [1] Scurless states "elliott" which is obviously my name. Another Dif, [2]
    Shane91c Difs, [3] Shane91c States again "elliott". But with a different name. How in all honestly can these two accounts not be related if they both in there edits state my name. [4]. Thanks for looking into this. Arctic Fox 14:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Very highly  Likely to be related. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 15:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Clerk note: indefed Scurless, blocked Shane91c for a week. -- lucasbfr talk 10:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for looking into this. Arctic Fox 11:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Soft redirect to:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jvolkblum
    This page is a soft redirect.

    Jvolkblum 15

    request links: view • edit • links • history • watch
    Filed: 12 January 2009 (UTC) by Orlady (talk)
    Suspected sock puppets

    Code letter:F

    • Supporting evidence:

    Most of the recent Jvolkblum-like activity has been from IPs that are used no more than once or twice, but there also are some registered users. I don't think I've captured the full list of IPs.

    • Moriarty09 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) has an edit record that is strongly consistent with Jvolkblum; has been blocked and reverted by Wknight94.
      • Comment by doncram Is this where discussion of evidence occurs? If not, please advise me and/or move this comment. On the case of Moriarty09, the four edits currently showing do not provide evidence that convinces me this is the same editor as Jvolkblum, because I believe that it is possible that there are more than one New Rochelle area editors who have been swept up in the accusations here. I note this as a kind of technical objection here, because I do think it likely that Moriarty09 is the same editor as some other socks previously swept up into this, and there may be no practical difference in treatment which can now be implemented. I cannot and do not want to review the entire Jvolkblum history and separate out which ones in the history were in fact separate persons. But as I stated in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Banned user Jvolkblum and New Rochelle, NY articles, I believe that it would be very difficult for any new wikipedia editor to emerge in the New Rochelle area without editing some of the articles previously edited by any of the previously identified socks, and then experiencing heavy-handed deletions and being labelled a sock. If an unfair sock accusation happened, i do not see what other recourse a would-be new editor would have, other than opening a new account and continuing to edit.
      • Anyhow, the Moriarty09 editor made 2 entirely unrelated edits (a copyedit to the the Gridiron building article that improved the article in my view, and an edit to the Ann Street (Manhattan) article about which i have no opinion). Then, the editor added a New Rochelle red-link to a list of Cemeteries named Holy Sepulchre Cemetery, which seems like a fine edit, although perhaps revealing an interest in New Rochelle-area articles. I don't see that as adequate to identify the editor is Jvolkblum. Then, the editor made one comment in the above-linked wt:NRHP discussion, defending an edit made by another account in the article about New Rochelle, an edit which Orlady brought up as an example of probable source fabrication by Jvolkblum socks. I take it was then that Wknight blocked the Moriarty09 editor. I don't dispute that Moriarty09 is likely the same as the other account. However, with further research it turns out that Orlady's allegation of fabrication was incorrect, and that Moriarty09's comment was substantially correct. So, I don't see any evidence of destructive editing by Moriarty09; it is only an association to previous socks (and not necessarily to the original Jvolkblum) which is likely here. And, I don't see that justice or whatever is served by blocking this one account. Given the discusson at wt:NRHP in which i stated an interest in making an unban proposal, i think that it could be helpful to allow Moriarty09 to be unblocked, if only to allow the person to show restraint. By this comment, though, i want mainly to note the possibility that this Moriarty09 editor is not the same editor as Jvolkblum. doncram (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • In partial response to Doncram's comments, Jvolkblum socks have done extensive editing in some Manhattan articles. Ann Street (Manhattan) is one of these. It has been edited previously by at least three different Jvolkblum sockpuppets. Moriarty09's edit to that article restored language previously provided by one or more of these socks. --Orlady (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jjespere (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) apparently recreated one or more Jvolkblum articles before being blocked and reverted by Wknight94.
    • 98.14.133.106 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) restored a Jvolkblum edit that I had deleted a short while earlier.
    • 174.133.55.25 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) added an unsourced paragraph to Beechmont (New Rochelle), which is one of Jvolkblum's articles.
    • 174.34.157.70 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) posted on Doncram's talk page to complain that Wknight94 and I are picking on people interested in contributing content about New Rochelle.
    • 76.99.17.30 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) made three edits to New City, New York, including deleting an image without explanation and for no apparent reason. This may be coincidence, but Jvolkblum has sometimes inflicted this type of minor damage on articles for New City and other communities that are near New Rochelle.
    No comment concerning Jvolkblum, but I would note that New City is not really near New Rochelle. New Rochelle is on the east side of Westchester, on the Long Island Sound, and New City is in Rockland County about 30 miles away, across the Hudson River and inland and north. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 09:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Added a little bit later:

     Possible that Moriarty09 is related. A good deal of his editing is through an98.14.133.106 open proxy (since blocked).

    Jjespere is also  Possible, although I would rephrase that as "very likely" on behavioural evidence, looking at his deleted contributions. The same user is also the IP 98.14.133.106.

    174.133.55.25 appears to be a proxying/IP-masking service -- WHOIS shows network:Organization-Name:My privacy tools. The range appears to be 174.133.55.16/28.

    174.34.157.70 may also be an open proxy -- the WHOIS information gives Ubiquity Server Solutions Chicago, but I haven't got access to a port scanner at the moment. The range is 174.34.156.0/22.

    I don't see any technical reason to suspect 76.99.17.30 of being Jvolkblum.

    64.255.180.74 also might be a proxy -- it is registered to Jupiter Hosting Corporation. The range is 64.255.160.0/19.

    These need further investigating -- I think it is likely that these three are proxies and that the user behind them is indeed Jvolkblum.

    [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 01:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I see the 64.255.*.* addresses in my sleep since Jvolkblum uses them often. FWIW, I perused one subrange and almost every edit was to New Rochelle articles and some Indian television list. That seemed like a strange pattern to me so a range of open proxies makes perfect sense. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC
    Thanks. Jvolkblum has been a heavy user of "My Privacy Tools." Also, Jupiter Hosting is one of the ISPs that Jvolkblum has used in the past, and there's been a long history of Jvolkblum edits from open-proxy and suspected open-proxy IPs. A major reason for requesting checks on these users is to see if there are any sleeper users on the same IPs -- I hope that any such users on these IPs have been quietly tagged and blocked. --Orlady (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking again, 64.255.160.0/19 probably isn't a range of open proxies. It does appear, however, to be a range used by Opera Mini users, which ties in with other Jvolkblum patterns of editing. Going on a wider check of the range and taking editing behaviour into consideration, it appears that Tenagrimes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and BQEDUDE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are also related. There were no unblocked accounts on any of the other IPs. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 09:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Both accuonts blocked and a couple articles deleted. BTW, to Doncram, for a reminder of why Jvolkblum is banned, see Talk:Suburb#Copyvio and plagiarism. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the note. I hope you don't mind that I provide, at that Talk page, a devil's advocate-type of response. I understand the example is one where one of the users caught up in this added material to an article without providing properly explicit sourcing. Eventually, the contribution is tracked down and entirely removed. I don't know how to say this without perhaps appearing a bit sarcastic, but this provides a complementary example to at least one case where the user added material with essentially proper sourcing. In the properly sourced case, the contribution is similarly removed, completely, by one of the enforcers here, with erroneous accusations that the user must have fabricated the source. So, why bother with the semi-difficult work of composing proper footnote references? It seems to me that there is an incredible amount of time and resources being put in here, to suppress a would-be contributor, and that you leave no alternative for the user(s) but to create more accounts and to keep editing and to play the big game that you and he/they are playing. I apologize if this does sound wrong; i don't mean to offend and I am not confident that I am expressing this properly. As I state in my devil's advocate-type response at the Suburb talk page, I do abhor the addition of unsourced material to articles, and I have devoted a lot of energy to discussing the general problem. Further, not said there, i have devoted a lot of thought and energy to specifically addressing the problem in NRHP / historic sites articles, and to trying to keep the problem out of this broad area that i work in. So, I should summarize that I am torn here, between defending someone who seems to be unfairly treated, vs. agreeing whole-heartedly that the actions of that person deserve to be censured. doncram (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This went beyond plagiarism into copyright violation. Most was copied word-for-word. But this isn't the right place to discuss that issue. I responded at Talk:Suburb and maybe it's time to raise this at WP:AN. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Lzki

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

    Populated account categories: confirmed

    For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lzki/Archive.

    ProudAGP


    Declined requests

    Ericorbit

    request links: view • edit • links • history • watch
    Filed: 14:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Supporting evidence:
    User:Ericorbit and his believed to be sock User:Realist2 team up together on pages and keep reverting. On pages like "New Amerykah Part Two (Return of the Ankh)" and "User:Realist2's talk page". After leaving a comment for User:Realist2, User:Ericorbit shows up to answer the question.[5] Another example of this, would be when I leave a comment for "User:Ericorbit" in response "User:Realist2" shows up. My request was for User:Ericorbit to stop personal attacking my talk page. User:Realist2 comes and says that no personal attacks have been made against me. One follows another or itself and is strongly believe to have a sockpuppet. User: Realist2 confessed that he is a sockpuppet of User:Ericorbit.[6]
    That "confession" on my talkpage was a very obvious joke, given that it followed this joke "outing" in the same thread, as part of a long discussion about legitimate uses of multiple accounts. I highly doubt Realist would be creating sockpuppets to post replies on his own talkpage. I don't want to do it myself as I'm technically involved now, but can someone close this RFCU, please? – iridescent 22:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Clerk note: Inappropriate comment removed, for details please see the page history. Tiptoety talk 23:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But in truth, Ericobit is backed up by Realist2. It seems way to obvious that he has a sockpuppet.Tarysky (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Contribution history of User talk:Ericorbit
    • (cur) (prev) 18:36, 9 January 2009 Realist2 (Talk | contribs) (24,225 bytes) (rep) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 18:29, 9 January 2009 Realist2 (Talk | contribs) (23,842 bytes) (→New Amerykah Part Two (Return of the Ankh): new section) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 15:33, 8 January 2009 Realist2 (Talk | contribs) (23,050 bytes) (com) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 04:58, 8 January 2009 Realist2 (Talk | contribs) (22,039 bytes) (com) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 04:35, 8 January 2009 Realist2 (Talk | contribs) (21,476 bytes) (ADD) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 22:54, 7 January 2009 Realist2 (Talk | contribs) (21,181 bytes) (add) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 22:18, 7 January 2009 SineBot (Talk | contribs) m (20,890 bytes) (Dating comment by StephenN17 - "") (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 22:17, 7 January 2009 StephenN17 (Talk | contribs) (20,681 bytes) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 21:23, 7 January 2009 Realist2 (Talk | contribs) m (20,487 bytes) (o) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 21:23, 7 January 2009 Realist2 (Talk | contribs) (20,487 bytes) (→Assistance needed: new section) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 18:03, 7 January 2009 Kww (Talk | contribs) (19,457 bytes) (→Lies (McFly song): new section) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 15:56, 7 January 2009 Realist2 (Talk | contribs) (19,135 bytes) (rep) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 11:40, 7 January 2009 Efe (Talk | contribs) (18,939 bytes) (→re: Hot 100 number-one hits of 2009: rsp) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 11:35, 7 January 2009 Efe (Talk | contribs) (18,740 bytes) (→re: Hot 100 number-one hits of 2009: rsp) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 11:08, 7 January 2009 Efe (Talk | contribs) (18,610 bytes) (rsp) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 03:24, 7 January 2009 Realist2 (Talk | contribs) (18,363 bytes) (→Bling bling: new section) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 22:40, 6 January 2009 Realist2 (Talk | contribs) (17,490 bytes) (add) (undo)
    This user has been going back and forth to User:Realist2. They have been collaborating way too much, reverting together, asking the other for help, leaving messages on another's page, and never disagree. In my belief, they have recently teamed up to revert an page, New Amerykah Part Two (Return of the Ankh). Both users "User:Ericorbit and User:Realist2" revert other user's edits to keep the page the same. Here is the history of the page,

    New Amerykah Part Two (Return of the Ankh)

    • (cur) (prev) 06:18, 10 January 2009 Efe (Talk | contribs) (1,255 bytes) (copy edit) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 23:22, 9 January 2009 Realist2 (Talk | contribs) (1,264 bytes) (please provide a direct link to the article because i can't find that in the search engine) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 23:14, 9 January 2009 Tarysky (Talk | contribs) (1,605 bytes) (Reference fix) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 23:11, 9 January 2009 Tarysky (Talk | contribs) (1,701 bytes) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 23:10, 9 January 2009 Tarysky (Talk | contribs) (1,679 bytes) (→Confirmed track list) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 23:10, 9 January 2009 Tarysky (Talk | contribs) (1,657 bytes) (These were the only songs mentioned in that article. This article doesn't not need to be reverted anymore by no one.) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 20:55, 9 January 2009 Ericorbit (Talk | contribs) m (1,264 bytes) (Reverted edits by JC STARR729 (talk) to last version by Realist2) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 20:52, 9 January 2009 JC STARR729 (Talk | contribs) (1,327 bytes) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 18:37, 9 January 2009 Realist2 (Talk | contribs) (1,264 bytes) (no it isn't, please provide a link to whatever version of the article you are using) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 18:34, 9 January 2009 198.86.17.162 (Talk) (1,452 bytes) (This is mention in the article) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 18:23, 9 January 2009 Realist2 (Talk | contribs) (1,264 bytes) (Undid revision 263012891 by 198.86.17.162 (talk) ive seen the essence magazine source and it doesn't mention this) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 18:21, 9 January 2009 198.86.17.162 (Talk) (1,452 bytes) (Sourced) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 00:00, 9 January 2009 Realist2 (Talk | contribs) (1,264 bytes) (Undid revision 262861425 by JC STARR729 (talk) unsourced) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 23:58, 8 January 2009 JC STARR729 (Talk | contribs) (1,326 bytes) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 17:10, 8 January 2009 Realist2 (Talk | contribs) (1,264 bytes) (Undid revision 262765172 by 198.86.17.162 (talk) i read the essence magazine piece and it doesn't mention this album) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 15:45, 8 January 2009 198.86.17.162 (Talk) (1,452 bytes) (Sources) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 23:42, 7 January 2009 Ericorbit (Talk | contribs) (1,264 bytes) (wikilinks) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 21:41, 7 January 2009 Realist2 (Talk | contribs) (1,268 bytes) (ref needed) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 21:39, 7 January 2009 JC STARR729 (Talk | contribs) (1,326 bytes) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 21:38, 7 January 2009 JC STARR729 (Talk | contribs) (1,268 bytes) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 22:40, 6 January 2009 Realist2 (Talk | contribs) (1,218 bytes) (needs sourcing) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 22:08, 6 January 2009 Realist2 (Talk | contribs) (1,415 bytes) (revert, http://www.essence.com/news_entertainment/entertainment/articles/erykahbaduthebraveone, it's about the fifth album, not sixth) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 21:55, 6 January 2009 Tarysky (Talk | contribs) (1,520 bytes) (→Confirmed track list) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 21:55, 6 January 2009 Tarysky (Talk | contribs) (1,520 bytes) (Added another source) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 21:46, 6 January 2009 Realist2 (Talk | contribs) (1,415 bytes) (unsourced) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 21:45, 6 January 2009 Tarysky (Talk | contribs) (1,465 bytes) (Undid revision 262387718 by Ericorbit (talk) "She said so" is not apart of this article) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 21:43, 6 January 2009 Ericorbit (Talk | contribs) (1,492 bytes) (provide a source pls. "she said so" is not a source.) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 21:42, 6 January 2009 Tarysky (Talk | contribs) (1,465 bytes) (Undid revision 262386512 by Ericorbit (talk)) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 21:37, 6 January 2009 Ericorbit (Talk | contribs) (1,414 bytes) (forums and message boards are not reliable sources) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 21:36, 6 January 2009 Tarysky (Talk | contribs) (1,558 bytes) (→Confirmed track list) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 21:36, 6 January 2009 Ericorbit (Talk | contribs) (1,402 bytes) (restore future tag) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 21:33, 6 January 2009 Tarysky (Talk | contribs) (1,385 bytes) (Confirmed Track list) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 21:30, 6 January 2009 Ericorbit (Talk | contribs) (1,402 bytes) (unsourced material removed again. corrected formatting to header and also improper capitalization in song title.) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 21:24, 6 January 2009 Tarysky (Talk | contribs) (1,603 bytes) (Undid revision 262382167 by Ericorbit (talk) S/he edits were sloppy. This page is under watch) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 21:17, 6 January 2009 Ericorbit (Talk | contribs) (1,409 bytes) (there is no confirmation that these are singles (if so pls provide them). Also fixed header capitalization per WP:MoS) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 21:08, 6 January 2009 Tarysky (Talk | contribs) (1,540 bytes) (→Confirmed Tracklisting) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 21:02, 6 January 2009 Tarysky (Talk | contribs) (1,498 bytes) (Reverted the edits of User:Ericorbit (talk) back to 198.86.17.162, Confirmed tracklisting not just tracklisting) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 16:14, 6 January 2009 Ericorbit (Talk | contribs) m (1,255 bytes) (Reverted edits by 198.86.17.162 (talk) to last version by Ericorbit) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 15:27, 6 January 2009 198.86.17.162 (Talk) (1,251 bytes) (Undid revision 262009081 by Ericorbit (talk) (Confirmed tracklisting)) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 01:50, 5 January 2009 Ericorbit (Talk | contribs) m (1,255 bytes) (moved New Amerykah Part Two (Return of the Ankh) (album) to New Amerykah Part Two (Return of the Ankh): naming conventions) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 01:49, 5 January 2009 Ericorbit (Talk | contribs) (1,255 bytes) (this section has no sources, other fixes) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 23:59, 4 January 2009 Tarysky (Talk | contribs) (1,251 bytes) (Started the page on New Amerykah Part Two (Return of the Ankh))
    Notice how one "User:Realist2" follows the other "User:Ericorbit" and doesn't allow the edits of other users. I have chosen to leave this page along after "User:Ericorbit" runs to "User:Realist2's talk page" who is probably an admin to do the job. Because three reverts on one page are against Wikipedia rules. This is his earliest edits
    • 14:31, 10 January 2009 (hist) (diff) m Lotus Flow3r ‎ (format and link title) (top)
    • 14:30, 10 January 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Jagamijs ‎ (Madonna singles discography) (top)
    • 14:29, 10 January 2009 (hist) (diff) m Madonna singles discography ‎ (Reverted edits by Jagamijs (talk) to last version by 167.64.85.73) (top)
    • 14:27, 10 January 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Realist2 ‎ (→Erykah Badu: go ahead.) (top)
    • 11:32, 10 January 2009 (hist) (diff) User:Ericorbit ‎ (another pretty pitcher) (top)
    • 11:30, 10 January 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Efe ‎ (→Hot 100 number-one hits of blah blah blah: reply) (top)
    • 11:27, 10 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Peer review/Hot 100 number-one hits of 2008 (United States)/archive1 ‎ (→Hot 100 number-one hits of 2008 (United States): comments) (top)
    • 11:05, 10 January 2009 (hist) (diff) m Number-one dance hits of 2008 (USA) ‎ (Reverted edits by Jay Phillippe (talk) to last version by Ericorbit) (top)
    • 11:03, 10 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Hot 100 number-one hits of 2008 (United States) ‎ (ack!!! didnt meant to do that.) (top)
    • 10:59, 10 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Hot 100 number-one hits of 2008 (United States) ‎ (small corrections.)
    • 00:35, 10 January 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Realist2 ‎ (→Erykah Badu: comment)
    • 00:29, 10 January 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tarysky ‎ (re:Erykah Badu)
    • 21:21, 9 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Record charts ‎ (→Korean charts: reply)
    • 21:08, 9 January 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:JC STARR729 ‎ (→January 2009: Soldier (Erykah Badu song))
    • 21:07, 9 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Soldier (Erykah Badu song) ‎ (remove unsourced first phrase and rumors about her next album, which has nothing to do with this song) (top)
    • 20:55, 9 January 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:JC STARR729 ‎ (→January 2009: New Amerykah Part Two (Return of the Ankh))
    • 20:55, 9 January 2009 (hist) (diff) m New Amerykah Part Two (Return of the Ankh) ‎ (Reverted edits by JC STARR729 (talk) to last version by Realist2)

    Tarysky (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined. No evidence of socking. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 21:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fipplet

    request links: view • edit • links • history • watch
    Filed: 19:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Supporting evidence:

    User:Fipplet, who on his/her user-page identifies as a Swede, was blocked on Jan. 8 for 48 hours for edit-warring: [7]

    About the same time the two above IP´s (which geolocate to Sweden) start edit-warring with User:Spool 26 and myself on a number of churches: Church of All Nations, Church of the Pater Noster, Church of Maria Magdalene Dominus Flevit Church,

    Also; IP:85.230.108.108 edits User:Fipplet´-s user-page: [8]

    Also, with this edit it seem that s/he admit to being ip number 85.230.108.247 ("Read what I (ip number 85.230.108.247) have written").

    Regards, Huldra (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fipplet, from September 2008, in which this editor was believed to have used 85.230.109.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a sock in a 3RR case. EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I thaugh't you only were forbidden to create a new account wile being block, not just editing when you're logged out? Anyway, I admit it and I am very sorry for this, but it is very hard for me to stay away from Wikipedia. I love wikipedia and live in an environment with a high density of computers. Very sorry, won't do it again. I think it is unnecessary to block me again since it happened such a long time ago and I didn't broke any rules while being blocked and the disgrace is punishment enough, also; doesn't admitting reduce your time being blocked? But do what you think is just. Again sorry. --Fipplet (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But it didn't happen "a long time ago"; it happened this weekend, when Fipplet was blocked for edit-warring. And, as shown above, it is the second toime s/he has done the same thing. The argument above is specious and barely credible; the whol;e point of being blocked is that you are not permitted to make edits. This is as clear a case as I have ever seen of sockpuppetry to beat a block, and should be dealt with accordingly.RolandR (talk) 08:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This weekend is about 4 days ago. That is a very long. And it isn't the second time I did this. Last time I created a new account and got blocked consequently for creating it. This time I didn't, I just continued to edit from my school cause I thaught you just blocked the account and not the person. Now I have learned this.
    What is the point of not being permitted to make edits? (This is a quote from Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses:

    Blocks should be based on the protection of Wikipedia rather than the punishment of offenders. Most IP addresses should not be blocked more than a few hours, since the malicious user will probably move on by the time the block expires.

    In this case blocking obviously surves no purpose). The point is to prevent further vioalations of Wikipedias' rules by that specific person. Since I didn't vioalate any rules while being blocked and since I didn't vioalate any rules during this four day period since being blocked and since I now have learned alot more about what is allowed and not, there is no point of blocking me. I won't do this again and i've certanly felt the disgrace of being punished. I am sorry for this but I urge you to do what is just and do it quick so that I then can return to wikipedia.--Fipplet (talk) 09:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined. He admitted it. No check needed. Also, Fipplet, you can't just say "Oh this block served no purpose so I evaded it". You do not get to decide that. --Deskana (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Completed requests

    Tool2Die4

    request links: view • edit • links • history • watch
    Filed: 06:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Supporting evidence:

    The IP address has no other contributions except anonymously 'corroborating' Tool2Die4's baseless accusations of sock puppetry against me.[9] (A WP:CHECKUSER already found me unrelated to the alleged puppet.[10])

    I contend that Tool2Die4 has a pattern of bullying and apparently passive-aggressive retaliation, as detailed in this WP:ANI entry: [11]. Tool2Die4 placed a request on the BLP noticeboard, and when all substantive comments agreed with me (and disagreed with Tool2Die4), suddenly this anonymous URL started 'corroborating' Tool2Die4's false accusations of sock puppetry against me.

    Google returned only one other instance of this IP address, where it appears this IP shares Tool2Die4's interest in football.[12]

    It seems unlikely to me that an anonymous IP would somehow be lurking innocently on the BLP noticeboard, while ignoring all BLP issues, and then suddenly jump in to support a false accusation of sock puppetry made elsewhere by Tool2Die4. The BLP page did not even mention Tool2Die4's false accusation until the anonymous IP added it. It seems likely to me that, frustrated by the failure of his/her efforts to bully me, Tool2Die4 resorted to engaging in exactly the conduct (sock puppetry) that had earlier sprung so readily to his/her mind.TVC 15 (talk) 06:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note to investigating Admin: When this is turned up negative, I do not want my IP revealed, for privacy concerns. Tool2Die4 (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Red X Unrelated. That said, your behaviour with your alternative account User:WikiKingOfMishawaka wasn't exactly above board. --Deskana (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That's probably why it got indef-banned, huh? Tool2Die4 (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    SuperSonicx1986

    request links: view • edit • links • history • watch
    Filed: 20:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

     Likely that SuperSonicx1986 and Gethomas3 are the same user.  Inconclusive technically as to the relationship with the IP, but note that the IP belongs to a university range; this by no means excludes the possibility of their being one user. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 00:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Clerk note: the same admin blocked both users in Dec/Jan, I'm contacting him to follow up. -- lucasbfr talk 09:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Alkclark

    request links: view • edit • links • history • watch
    Filed: 04:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Supporting evidence:
    This shows almost perfect non-overlap of editing sessions between the four editors listed above over two months (can crank the list up to 1000 edits if needed). Notice the first three of these editors warring against Madchester's changes at Viva la Vida Tour. Seems to be an editor who has used multiple accounts in the attempt to win slow-moving revert wars on music articles. If confirmed I think the socks should be indeffed and the master account sanctioned as well. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Confirmed that the three accounts and the IP are the same user. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 00:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Clerk note: Main account blocked for 48 hours, all other named accounts indef blocked. I blocked the IP for one week with account creation disabled. Tiptoety talk 06:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tiptoety (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) extended the block to indefinite.  —  Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 16:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    BenH (2nd)

    request links: view • edit • links • history • watch
    Filed: 18:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
     Clerk note: Errr, the last contributions of BenH were in the summer of 2006. Got anything newer to compare with? -- lucasbfr talk 20:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Anything in this category can be used. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 13, 2009 @ 22:19
    Benh34 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) might not be stale, if CUs wish to work with it. -- lucasbfr talk 22:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Inconclusive, technically. There might be a relationship -- it should be assessed on behavioural evidence. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 00:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Mike-Jones-at-dc

    request links: view • edit • links • history • watch
    Filed: 20:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

     Likely that these two accounts are related, as is the IP. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 01:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Clerk note: Named accounts already blocked. I went ahead and blocked the IP for two weeks. Tiptoety talk 02:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding the above - I don't believe the user who never signs in, and it described in the sections on my Talk Page by Jolly Janner, is the same user as is being discussed on this page. The user on this page seems to be fixated with Drake Circus. My pet IP user tends to hand out at Plymouth College and Plymouth in general. I think this are distinct users, and so the material on my page shouldn't prejudice the user being discussed. Stevebritgimp (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also the user described on my page (IP/Whiteworks) tends to remove all mention of Drake Circus, rather than spam pages with websites promoting it. Stevebritgimp (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. The user is playing the system. Making it seem as though Drake Circus shopping centre is actualy behind the SPAMing. It's just wasting people's time. As far as I'm concerned, any of the users doing disuptive edits to Drake Circus are the same people. What are the chances of two seriel vandals picking the same article to target? Jolly Ω Janner 21:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A handful more. Their contributions and comments to each other suggest a concerted effort to use WP for advertising and to evade blocks via multiple accounts:

    I've indef-blocked 'em. By behavior, seems likely to be a few meatpuppets, each with a drawer of socks. DMacks (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Confirmed that all these accounts are related. I'm afraid there is no IP block that can be done -- the range is at least a /14 and possibly larger, as well as being highly dynamic. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 00:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, I'll try to report these accounts as soon as I spot them. Jolly Ω Janner 00:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Argyle2006

    request links: view • edit • links • history • watch
    Filed: 22:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Supporting evidence:

    I've been dealing with a long-term vandal who creates new accounts about weekly to insert opinions, counter-factual statements and WP:BLP violations in a variety of articles. A great number of blocked socks can be found here. Common article targets include those listed below plus Doris Kearns Goodwin, The Librarians, M*A*S*H (TV series), Charlie Rose, and Cryptdin, among others.

    I have listed all the accounts that I've personally dealt with since October. All of the above accounts have been indefinitely blocked (mostly by me), and the listed IP still has another month to go on its latest block. However, it would be useful to identify any as-yet undetected accounts or sleeper accounts for this individual. Perhaps blocking the underlying IP(s) may be warranted. Thanks, — Scientizzle 22:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Confirmed to be related to the above accounts:

    All recent IP addresses are already blocked. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 00:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Clerk note: Blocked & tagged. Tiptoety talk 00:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    IP/A

    Requests for IP check

    • Vandal and attack accounts may be listed here for the purpose of identifying and blocking the underlying IP address or open proxy. Requests to confirm sockpuppets of known users should be listed in the sockpuppet section above.
    • If you already know the IP address of the suspected open proxy, list it at Wikipedia:Open Proxies instead.
    • Use === Subsections ===; do not create subpages.
    • List user names using the {{checkuser|username}} template. Add new reports to the top of the section.
    • Requests may be acted on or declined according to the discretion of the checkuser admins. Responses will be noted here. Specific evidence of abuse in the form of diffs may be required so as to avoid the impression of fishing for evidence.
    • Answered requests will be moved to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check/Archive for 7 days, after which they will be deleted. No separate archive (other than the page history) will be maintained.


    Non-compliant requests

    NC

    Requests that do not follow the instructions at the top of the page will be moved here. Common reasons for noncompliance include:

    • Did not cite a code letter, or cite more than one code letter.
    • Did not cite any supporting diffs if the code letter requires diffs.
    • Included IP addresses.

    The specific deficiencies may be noted with Additional information needed. Cases which are corrected may be moved back to the pending section. Cases which are not corrected will be deleted after 3 days.

    Please note that meeting these three criteria does not ensure that your check will be run. The checkusers retain final discretion over all cases.

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser&oldid=264375060"