Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
- WP:RFCU redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct (WP:RFC/U), CheckUser policy (Wikipedia:CheckUser), or Wikipedia:Changing username (WP:CHU).
| Purpose of this page | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Users can request discussion about a possible breach of sock puppetry policy on this page.
Sockpuppet investigations (SPI)
Evidence
CheckUser
Deciding whether to ask for CheckUser You should not usually need CheckUser evidence if:
You may wish to ask for additional CheckUser evidence if:
A CheckUser request can always be added for good cause to an existing case, by anyone, at any time. Other CheckUser requests This page may also be used for other CheckUser requests unrelated to sock abuse. For example:
[edit] Search for prior cases[edit] InstructionsSee Requesting a sock puppet investigation (guidance), and Defending yourself against claims. If you are already familiar with the instructions, create the case by replacing "CASENAME" with the name of the puppet master, or previous case name in the box below. The name given to the case should be the original case name (if any), or the main name the user is known by (do not add the word "user:", or number the cases). Eg, if the case name is about User:John Doe or the existing case is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John Doe, then you should enter Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John Doe in the box.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[edit] Useful reading
| SPI process related |
|
|
| Background |
|
[edit] Open cases: not awaiting CheckUser
Miceduan and 69.172.115.69 |
||
|---|---|---|
|
Miceduan |
|---|
|
Miceduan
[edit] Report date July 6 2009, 07:17 (UTC)
Over the past few days I have reverted a number of external link additions by Miceduan. These have been, in my opinion and that of others, spam links intended to promote a commercial company Au Group Electronics. Earlier today Barek (talk · contribs) removed a number of Miceduan's links following my report of Miceduan's activities to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam - all of which were subsequently undone by Miceduan. Shortly after this, and over a very short period of time, 69.172.115.69 reverted a number of my edits made over the past couple of days - seemingly for no apparent reason. Although one should assume good faith I am drawn to the conclusion that this IP address was used by Miceduan as I cannot think of any other editor that I have upset by my anti-spam or anti-vandal actions. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
|
Tnaniua |
|---|
|
Tnaniua
[edit] Report date July 5 2009, 14:03 (UTC)
|
WriteINGWell |
|---|
|
WriteINGWell
[edit] Report date July 4 2009, 22:44 (UTC)
I've been patrolling some of the User:Bambifan101 target articles and I've found these two accounts editing much the same articles in much the same way. Lots of image copyvios, lots of edits to the article spaces on Disney movies and Australian television, no interaction with other users or acknowledgement of the concerns of others. I don't think it's Bambifan101 but a similar user; BF at least uses edit summaries and talk pages. This individual does not. I hear the unmistakable sound of quacking. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
|
Twospoonfuls |
|---|
|
Twospoonfuls
[edit] Report date July 4 2009, 05:38 (UTC)
After a number of edits over a long period of time starting on the 21st of March 2008 [11], here; [12], here; [13], and so on, where he would revert anybodies edits that formatted the page into sections, which he didn't agree with, and a discussion on the talk page where this user made it clear that he felt ownership of the page Eurymedon vase, here [14], and then afterwards he unilaterally declares the discussion closed, [15]. Not to mention being very uncivil throughout the process of trying to resolve the problem, such as here for example; [16], where he ends with "This "argument" (if I can dignify it with that Aristotelean term) would be more palatable if it wasn't an attempt to peddle arrant nonsense. And as much as I would be delighted to put forward a counter-argument I can't, because no argument has been posited in the first place. De gustibus non est disputandum. Seriously, go and find some thing useful to do.". Anyway this culminated with him saying he was going to just treat everybody else's edits as vandalism from then on, and reverting the page. I left off editing the page at the time because it all seemed too much trouble over a minor thing, until recently when I noticed via having placed the article on watch, that an editor had introduced sections again and Twospoonfuls had reverted it as vandalism. Mistakenly I felt that since he was using a false edit summary that it invalidated his own reversion as bad faith, and reverted it, using the summary to inform him of the fact that you shouldn't call good faith edits vandalism and this was actually against the relevant guidelines. Well he kept right on reverting the changes as 'vandalism', and after that had happened a few times, it occurred to me to review the rules on 3RR and edit warring, which I found we were in violation of, so I stopped editing the article, informed him of this and posted a report of the situation at the 3RR board. He kept reverting in the mean time until an admin acting on my report gave us both 24hr temporary bans for the edit warring, and the unregistered editor who had just previously introduced sections came back and apparently not realising why his edit had been undone went ahead and reintroduced the sections. Now a couple of days later this new editor Hygestone shows up, and having no other edit history [17], goes straight to this small obscure article and reverts the addition of sections? [18] That multiple, independent editors had introduced before, and only Twospoonfuls had objected to, and been oddly adamant about it, considering the relative non-controversial edits he's objecting so strongly too are the addition of section heading for readability. Well it makes me more than a little suspicious, and then edits again without changing anything [19], presumably to make sure the last edit summary that comes up on peoples watch lists doesn't show that it was a revert. Apparently from this edit on his talk page [20] he considers the whole getting banned for edit warring, and editors wanting to introduce section headings, to be 'horseshit', motivated by people being impressionable and getting over-excited by the subject of whether homosexual relationships in ancient Greece were all hand-handing and flowers or not, so I'm really not sure where he's coming from in all this. Anyway. I followed the directions on how to post one of these reports as best I can, so if I've done anything incorrect in the linking to difs or not included something necessary, let me know. Cheers Number36 (talk) 05:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know where to begin with thhat catalogue of confusion and misrepresentation above, so I'll confine myself to the relevant facts. I don't have any other accounts, I have had a static IP on my PC since 2005, I have not asked anyone to intervene on my behalf. And nor would I ask anyone to do so, my argument remains that in deciding between stylistic preferences it is precident not consenus that determines priority: as in the case with BC/BCE disputes. My position is consistant with that laid out in the MoS. A point I've been unable to impress on Mr Number36, who I've suggested he take the matter to mediation or arbitration if he disagrees with the Manual of Style, but who seems to prefer edit warring and game playing. Further it is not "rather obvious" Hygestone is me (which is certainly not the case), any more than it is obvious that 74.9.140.66 is user:Blue_Danube. Indeed there is a much stronger circumstantial case for the latter rather than the former. Blue Danube shares the same editing history (i.e. James Bond) with the anonymous user, the traceroute resolves to the north east US, and the user has been explicit in citing IP addresses in his claim of consensus opinion. However that does not make it "obvious" to me they are the same, I've already asked an admin to run a checkuser on this and I'll have to come back to the matter when I have the opportunity. Lastly I had to learn about this allegation from the links page at Eurymedon Vase, is this furtiveness also evidence of "good faith"?Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 08:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Looking at Hygestone (talk · contribs)'s contributions, it's rather obvious that they are the same user as Twospoonfuls (talk · contribs). That said, Hygestone seems to be an editor that has been here for quite some time, since 2006, so I might recommend blocking the sock, a 24 hour block for the master, and a curt warning that further socking will result in an indef block. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 23:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
|
Tngah |
|---|
|
Tngah
[edit] Report date July 3 2009, 06:34 (UTC)
This user abused sockpuppets to violate WP:DE, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:EW, WP:TE http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_American&diff=300349345&oldid=300347139 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_American&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racism_in_Argentina&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:68.173.95.177 Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page White American has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Your recent edit to the page Racism in Argentina appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any other tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. Stop creating mistakes with the direct translation of Juan Bautista Alberdi as seen at this page. Binksternet (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC) You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Racism in Argentina. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Binksternet (talk) 03:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC) You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on White American. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:69.86.6.163 Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to White American, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. JForget 22:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Chronology
|
Blippy |
|---|
|
Blippy
[edit] Report date June 29 2009, 12:47 (UTC)
Blippy edits Australian articles, reincarnation articles and Ian Stevenson; suddenly Burberry southsea (sounds Brit, doesn't it?) showed today and edited Reincarnation research until he got 3RR warned and then started "supporting Blippy's consensus version" on Ian Stevenson. Call me cynical, but its looks fishy to me. Burberry is certainly not a newbie; looks like he might be a sock of Blippy. OTOH, I'm not all that good at identifying socks unless they're Gastrich or Awbrey; so I submit here. Evidence is more or less Special:Contributions/Burberry_southsea en toto. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Ummmm... sock puppet eh? Not entirely sure what that means, and I'm not entirely clear on how to defend myself. I'm assuming those with better understandings will resolve this happily - although if there's anything in particular I can do to help, please let me know - I'm still fairly inexperienced with WP. Addressing the, uh, accusation (?) above, KC has edited the Stevenson page and one of the pages I started recently on the Berry Street charity (thanks BTW - I forgot how do do those Ref things properly at the end). I'm not sure if this implies that he too is a sock puppet? It sounds kind of cute though... maybe the kind of thing a killer chihuahua might attack!! Fair enough. Anyway if there's anything serious going on here I'd appreciate a heads up before anything drastic happens. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Hi, just wondering how long these things normally take? I noticed that Burberry southsea seems to have vanished - and only recently joined - so it seems KC's intuitions are reasonably well tuned. I wrote to Bs but haven't seen a response yet - I guess they may be busy elsewhere... or scared off! Anyway I'm assuming this all comes down to IP logs etc. but will be happier when it's resolved. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 10:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
|
Alex West |
|---|
|
Alex West
[edit] Report date July 1 2009, 03:33 (UTC)
All named accounts primarily edit film or model related articles, the vast majority of which are relevant to Scott Shaw. A number of dynamic IPs (Verizon) which geolocate to Los Angeles, USA, also seem to be involved. There are literally hundreds of articles linking to Scott Shaw which seems oddly out of proportion to his status or achievements. I included the IP in this report to show the addition of Shaw to a template listing modern Dharmic writers. Scott Shaw · Alan Watts · Thich Nhat Hanh ...which one of these things is not like the others? Both Alex West (talk · contribs) and Filmbotboy (talk · contribs) have !voted in the AfD for Zen filmmaking, an article about Scott Shaw. Although the two accounts have different editing and commenting styles, they share some features which should be apparent to anyone used to dealing with sockpuppets. There are obvious similarities in these recent responses to questions on their talk pages - Alex West: [22] & [23], Filmbotboy: [24] & [25]. This seems to me to be a clear case vote stacking with sockpuppets, and very probable long-term COI editing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I've looked over this case quite closely, and call it a "gut feeling", but after reviewing a poor man's checkuser, it seems more likely that these users simply have similar interests. The style of editing of Alex West (talk · contribs) demonstrates a knowledge of Wikipedia's policies, for example, adding a fair use rationale that wasn't provided by Bigharley, and detailed rationales at AFD. The user comes across as someone who has knowledge of Wikipedia policy, and seems to me to be a user in their own right. I feel it's highly unlikely that any of the above "socks" belong to Alex West (talk · contribs). Whether or not they are a sock of someone else is another matter, but, in the unlikely case they are socks, I see no abuse, so no administrative action required. You may wish to refer this to the Conflict of interest noticeboard, however. They may be able to help you there. That said, this looks like a case of separate users, with similar interests, editing similar articles, rather than the same user creating a sockfarm. Best, Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 01:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
|
[edit] Bot-reported cases
(view cases | edit cases )
| Bot reported cases |
|---|
| The following content has been placed in a collapsed box for improved usability. |
|
| The above content has been placed in a collapsed box for improved usability. |
[edit] Open cases: awaiting Checkuser processing
Cases in this section have an open request for CheckUser that is being processed. Any user may update or act on this case, and any patroller or clerk may decide the case. However it will not be closed if the Clerks believe any further action is needed.
- Endorsement or decline of CheckUser may only be made by a Clerk.
- If your case is not showing up here, or this section seems out of date, please click the .
[edit] Awaiting Clerk approval
Arab Cowboy |
|---|
|
Arab Cowboy
[edit] Report date July 2 2009, 20:06 (UTC)
an RfC was created on the Asmahan talkpage, Everything here below was posted in about 2 hours. Everything can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asmahan&action=history Arab Cowboy started talking about: "15:48, 2 July 2009, is agreed." Meaning that, that article edit is "agreed", It was not agreed, it was not some kind of "final status" article, no one ever suggested that, only him, and he kept on repeating this phrase. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAsmahan&diff=299906677&oldid=299900447 HelloAnnyong is a 3O mediator, here Arab Cowboy asks HelloAnyone "Annyong, please explain what is involved in this RfC process." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAsmahan&diff=299908784&oldid=299908041 HelloAnnyong responds: "It gets listed at a central location, and people will come here and read the discussion and leave their opinions below." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAsmahan&diff=299909115&oldid=299908784 Here Arab Cowboy says "Nationality in the lead aside" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAsmahan&diff=299910820&oldid=299910277 Here Arab Cowboy starts talking about it again: "Your latest edit of 15:48, 2 July 2009 is acceptable and does not need to be changed further." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAsmahan&diff=299913353&oldid=299912822 In the RfC, Arab Cowboys lists 5 points, three of them are: "The article should not be neutral to her nationality." "neutralize her nationality," and "Your latest edit of 15:48, 2 July 2009 is acceptable and does not need to be changed further.". This post can be found at the RfC: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asmahan&oldid=299929090
The mediator HelloAnnyongs response: ":Your first edit on Wikipedia is commenting on an RfC? A rather suspicious start... I hope someone isn't puppeting... " http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAsmahan&diff=299928709&oldid=299927707
UPDATE: Yesterday I was blocked for 24 hours, a user named "Wolof359" showed up and starting editing the exact same articles I have been involved in using the exact same language. I think it was Arab Cowboy trying to fool people that I had created a second account to get me banned from Wikipedia. This is his edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wolof359 At the Sea of Galilee article, I had written "Golan is not Israel." he wrote "also Syrian too because Golan Heights is not Israel." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sea_of_Galilee&action=history At the druze article he did the same revert as me: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Druze&diff=300029523&oldid=299739268 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Druze&diff=300097056&oldid=300032507 At the Mount Hermon Ski Resrt article I had written "not in Israel.", he wrote "not in Israel." :http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mount_Hermon_ski_resort&action=history At the Golan Heights article he did the exact same revert as I had done: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golan_Heights&diff=299954291&oldid=299950868 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golan_Heights&diff=300116308&oldid=300032437 I am involved in these four articles right now, but there was one article that he did not touch, and that was the Asmahan article, the same one that me and Arab Cowboy are arguing over. He let it be like Arab Cowboys edit. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
|
Mikerichi |
|---|
|
Mikerichi
[edit] Report date July 3 2009, 11:06 (UTC)
This relates to the Steven Wells article, with some relevance to Sons of Ben (MLS supporters association) / related AfD and crossover with Modena F.C. & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rasputin's penis Steven Wells was an English ranting poet and music journalist who was highly notable within his niche, but whose WP article was poorly sourced and so not obviously so. In recent years he was a journalist in the USA and had some connection with soccer, particularly his local Philly team. He died very recently. Deletions were attempted within minutes after the article had been tagged as a recent death: There appears to be some grudge on behalf of user:Mikerichi related to Philly soccer, leading to an agenda that led him to try and delete the Steven Wells after his death, as "death doesn't confer notability". This was sufficiently bizarre that it started UK press coverage "Wikipedia kills legendary journalist" that wasn't complimentary to the project, if not actually harmful. Fortunately wikiprocess appears to have worked well here. Talk:Steven Wells is where most of the story is, but check back through the history and watch for section deletions. There's now an irate IP user:69.253.207.9 who is removing any comment on this from talk pages, inc. user talk pages, in a seeming attempt to defend the honour of user:Mikerichi. That smells a lot like sockery. As far as article mainspace goes, common sense seems to have prevailed. AfD refused, article improved by referencing, all is good. As far as the "personal attacks" go, then I would judge these to have been fairly detailed and restrained, focussing on actions not ad hominem - but then I would say that, as much of those were my own edits. If any Admin-types want to pass comment here, and on my own actions, then you are of course free to do so. If I've stepped over any line, then please point it out. Now though we have an IP deleting any talk: comment they dislike, and it looks like a sock. This is a disruption that is moving beyond the tolerable, so I'd appreciate intervention by the higher echelons.
Author in question, user:Mikerichi nommed a page for deletion Steven Wells that had been tagged as lacking references for about a year and only had one reference at the time of the nomination. Andy Dingley and one or two others attacked that author on the talk pages for Andy Dingley, User:Mikerichi and Steven Wells assuming bad faith on the part of User:MikeRichi. I have deleted the personal attacks when I've seen them. Note that all of the deleted content involves talk pages and not actual articles. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Also, this "anon IP" is a public WiFi spot, although AFAIK I'm the only person who's used it to edit Wikipedia. All of the recent edits are mine and this account has never been tagged with any sort of warning about vandalism, etc. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
|
TreadingWater |
|---|
|
TreadingWater
[edit] Report date June 29 2009, 18:33 (UTC)
Unitanode 18:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Unitanode 18:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Unitanode 23:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Unitanode 02:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
This is outrageous. I am in no way a sock puppet, meat puppet, or any other kind of puppet. I don't know any of these other users. I have not been recruited, or in any other way solicited by these users, or any other users. I've looked at many Wikipedia pages for a long time, but only opened my account relatively recently. I didn't "mysteriously" just show up today, I regularly watch certain pages, including the Boomer page. When I saw that Treading was getting ganged up on, I jumped in to help today. I regret that I was busy this weekend and didn't look at these pages, 'cause it looks like Treading was given a tough time. Now I will start paying more attention to these pages, and will strenuously defend myself against this baseless claim.Benny winston (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC) This is a bad faith attempt at retaliation by user Unitanode. I will quickly address it now, and in more detail later: I am not a sockpuppet. I only edit as “TreadingWater” (whether I’m at this IP address or at any other IP address). I did have other accounts in the past, but none of them are in use now (I am under the impression that it is OK to stop using one account and open another. At least twice in the past, I stupidly forgot my password, so I just stopped using the old account and opened a new one). I do not know the other users that Unitanode accuses of sockpuppetry. I just looked through this list, and believe Unitanode’s claims are ridiculous. Five of the nine user names he cites aren’t even current users. One of the other users only edited on one day. That leaves two other users in addition to myself. I just looked through those two users’ contributions and don’t see any basis for this claim of sockpuppetry.TreadingWater (talk) 01:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
However,
-- Avi (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
As for the users Avi reports on, I corroborate his findings. ++Lar: t/c 03:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
|
[edit] Awaiting CheckUser
Bsktblldn619 |
|---|
|
Bsktblldn619
[edit] Report date July 6 2009, 02:29 (UTC)
User is creating multiple accounts to insert copyvio images from Commons (which he has apparently uploaded there under false free licenses) to baseball-related articles. See here for details. Also impersonation of User:Killervogel5. I've already blocked all these accounts and the IP - requesting checkuser to find any sleepers and to determine if there are any other underlying IPs that may safely be blocked to prevent further disruption. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
|
PoliticianTexas |
|---|
|
PoliticianTexas
[edit] Report date July 6 2009, 03:45 (UTC)
Not sure where I should put this, but...
|
Wiki-11233 |
|---|
|
Wiki-11233
This page's archived case(s) are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki-11233/Archive [edit] Report date July 5 2009, 17:16 (UTC)
83.109.101.16 continues to insert the false information that 83.109.100.230 was blocked for. Obvious extension of the range. WHOIS shows it all as a part of a bit /16 range. Checkuser might be able to identify a smaller range that can be blocked effectively. At the very least, Wiki-11233 needs his block extended.—Kww(talk) 14:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
|
[edit] Completed cases
[edit] Pending close
Cases here have been closed by users and are awaiting a Clerk to review for formal close and archiving.
- If your case is not showing up here, or this section seems out of date, please click the .
(view cases | edit cases )
TDC |
||
|---|---|---|
|
TDC
This page's archived case(s) are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TDC/Archive [edit] Report date July 4 2009, 19:22 (UTC)
Noting how each has edited their own user page and talk page. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 22:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Those impostors were trying to add a ban to the indef block of Axmann8. I would ask that they be looked into as possible CENSEI socks. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
No action taken. Tiptoety talk 03:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
|
Bambifan101 |
||
|---|---|---|
|
Bambifan101
This page's archived case(s) are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bambifan101/Archive [edit] Report date July 3 2009, 18:34 (UTC)
Bambifan socks contributions same Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 18:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
-- Avi (talk) 02:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Tiptoety talk 03:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
|
[edit] Quick CheckUser requests
This section is only for CheckUser requests unrelated to sockpuppetry.
The following are valid reasons for requesting a quick check:
- Blocking of underlying IPs for a longer term than afforded by autoblock.
- Collateral damage checks before hardblocking IPs and ranges.
- Threats of harm (to self or others), necessitating contact with law enforcement or medical authorities.
- Checks connected with granting IP block exemption to a user.
Requests to investigate and confirm sockpuppets should be listed in the sockpuppet section above. Quick requests that are actually sockpuppet cases will be delisted by a clerk without being actioned.
Copy the following template and paste it to the end of this page (quick link to edit) with a useful header and details, then sign using "~~~~" and click "save".
-
==== HEADER ====
{{SPIquick}}
[edit] User:Arpierson1993
 |
This quick case is open. |
The fourth CU for this user was just completed on July 3rd which resulted in an extend rangeblock of 75.104.192.32/27. However, two new socks have been added to the drawer since that time:
- Richard Meeks (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
- Russell Cummings (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser)
The socks are very easy to spot, but as I'm going to be away for a week or so, this will hopefully limit any further disruption during that time. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 04:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
