Administrator instructions - 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).
| Welcome to Sockpuppet investigations (SPI). Please see the sockpuppet policy for detailed definitions and descriptions of what sockpuppetry is and is not. This page is used to discuss whether a user is likely to have violated that policy, or breached other restrictions (eg blocks or bans) using multiple accounts.
[edit] CheckUser CheckUser is a tool that allows authorized users to look at technical information left when a user/IP makes an edit. This technical information can help determine if a single person is using more than one account. Use of the checkuser tool is governed by policies on the English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation levels. For more information, see the Foundation policy, the local policy and the Foundation privacy policy. [edit] When not to request CheckUser There must be credible evidence supporting the suspicion of sockpuppetry, and good cause why CheckUser is required. Requests for checkuser without evidence will be declined, because  CheckUser is not for fishing. CheckUser is also not  magic pixie dust, and should not be requested to investigate canvassing or meatpuppetry,  Stale account(s) that have not edited for many months, or cases where behavioral evidence is sufficient to decide the matter (see also the  duck test). [edit] Making Quick CheckUser requests See #Quick CheckUser requests. This page may also be used for other CheckUser requests unrelated to sock abuse, such as: [edit] Evidence and SPI case guidelines  | If the evidence is sensitive, privacy is needed, or if it involves sock puppetry by an administrator, seek advice by email from a Checkuser or the Arbitration Committee first. Private information, emails, logs, etc, may not be posted on the wiki; if they are important evidence, you must also seek advice by email first. | You need to provide evidence showing the accounts or IPs are likely to be sock-puppets and acting in a disruptive or forbidden manner, which other users will then assess. If there is no evidence showing forbidden sock-puppetry, then nothing will happen and the case is likely to be speedily closed by the SPI clerks. Most SPI cases are decided based upon behavioral evidence, that is, the behavior of the accounts or IPs concerned. This evidence needs to be explicit; that is, use verifiable evidence in the form of diffs, links to the pages in which the sock puppetry is occurring, and reasonable deductions and impressions drawn from said evidence. Evidence solely consisting of vague beliefs or assumptions will be rejected. Some general guidelines when making your SPI case: - Remember to always assume good faith when possible.
- After submitting a case, consider notifying the suspected accounts by adding
{{subst:socksuspectnotice|PUPPETMASTER}} ~~~~ to the bottom of their talk pages. Notification is not mandatory, and may, in some instances, lead to further disruption or provide a sockpuppeteer with guidance on how to avoid detection. - Do not use any section headers ("===") on case pages as this will break the report templates and mess up the formatting.
- Keep it simple. Simple, concisely presented evidence leads to a quickly resolved case.
- After administrators and/or checkusers have reviewed the case, it will be closed and archived by an SPI clerk. (Administrators may mark a case closed using {{SPIclose}}.)
[edit] Submitting an SPI case Create the case by replacing "SOCKMASTER" with the name of the oldest account, or previous case name in the box below. For example, if the case name is about User:John Doe or a prior case is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John Doe, then you should enter Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John Doe in the box, then click the button. | Start an SPI case WITHOUT a CheckUser request | Start an SPI case WITH a CheckUser request | | | | | Instructions for requesting checkuser on open cases | | Anyone can request CheckUser at any time on an open case if it is necessary. (This is done automatically if you use the "Request CheckUser" box to create your new request.) If you wish to request CheckUser to any existing open case, then do the following: - Add {{RFCU|CASE LETTER|No2ndLetter|New}} under the "Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments" section.
- Note: if you used the "Start sockpuppet investigation plus CheckUser request" box to create your new request, then this will already be done, and the template will be placed under the "CheckUser request" section.
- Replace "CASE LETTER" with one of the code letters provided (A, B, C, D, E, or F)
- If a second reason to request CheckUser is necessary, then replace "No2ndLetter" with another code letter.
- A clerk will review the case and make a determination as to whether CheckUser is needed. A clerk will either
 endorse the case for CheckUser attention or  decline the case. - If the case is declined, then the case will be included back on the list of SPI cases that do not have CheckUser requests. If the case is endorsed, then a CheckUser will check all given accounts for technical evidence; this may take a while. At the end, CheckUser may post their results under the "Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments" section, stating which accounts are
 confirmed to be the same user, which ones are  likely,  possible, or  unlikely that they are the same user, and which ones are  unrelated or  inconclusive. Sometimes, underlying  IP(s) may also be blocked. - The case is then placed back in the list of non-CheckUser requests pending further comments from clerks or patrolling administrators, or it may be closed by a CheckUser or clerk if all issues have been addressed.
| [edit] Administrators' instructions If you wish to help out at SPI, but are unsure how to get started, please read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Administrators instructions. If you need help with anything, please ask one of the active SPI clerks. [edit] See also | [edit] Open cases: not awaiting CheckUser [edit] User reported cases (view cases | edit cases )
| | | Handrem - Handrem (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
[edit] Report date November 26 2009, 15:38 (UTC) [edit] Suspected sockpuppets
[edit] Evidence submitted by DRosin These users have two things in common. a) a COI with Love Systems and Nick Savoy. b) An identical editing history Nick Savoy is the CEO of Love Systems, a company that runs dating workshops and sells dating-related products.
a)
Coaster7 created the Love Systems page. The user also proposed Nick Savoy for the following template which highlights notable members of the seduction community. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Notable_Members_of_The_Seduction_Community&diff=prev&oldid=241571900 The user was previously questioned for the COI with Love Systems and Nick Savoy on the user's talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Coaster7
Camera123456 was previously suspected of being a sock puppet by User:RHaworth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Camera123456&diff=202152038&oldid=202151939 The user deleted this tag. One of the first edits of this user was adding Nick Savoy into a list of notable seduction 'gurus' on the seduction community page. In the deletion review of Nick Savoy this user and Coaster7 supported each other's vote: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_November_6&diff=prev&oldid=250310683
Handrem's substantial edits consist of writing about Love Systems and Nick Savoy, or editing the pages of their competitors, for example James Matador. Here is an early edit of Handrem, just an example of editing about Love Systems and Nick Savoy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Love_Systems&diff=prev&oldid=250334680 All three users are currently voting on an AfD for Adam Lyons, a competitor. I am the creator of this article, and I have no issue with them voting delete but I think their activity is suspicious especially in light of point b). It should be noted that all three of them voted within minutes of each other on the AfD.
b)
On all three of these users' contribution lists you will see one thing in common. A significant proportion and frequency of editing articles related to Love Systems, Nick Savoy and their competitors- and an array of other articles with no clear link. Every edit other than related to Love Systems etc. consists of the addition of one Wikilink to a word in the article, or a single correction of a spelling mistake. If you look through their contribution list and actually view their contributions, you will see that their edits add minimal value to the articles, but instead make it appear like they edit other things, ie. it makes it appear that they are not sockpuppets without having to go through the trouble of undergoing any valuable editing. Here are the links to the last three edits by Handrem as a case in point http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pseudo.com&diff=prev&oldid=327960717 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leadership&diff=prev&oldid=327960589 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Extended_Reach_Drilling&diff=prev&oldid=327960442 Here are the links to their contributions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Handrem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Coaster7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Camera123456 Also worth mentioning is the obscure knowledge they display in their edits which suggest they are close to Love Systems and Nick Savoy, if not part of Love Systems or Nick Savoy himself. An example of this is the information about the legal dispute between Erik von Markovik and Savoy. To provide context the major competitors edited would likely be: Richard La Ruina, Adam Lyons, Mystery, James Matador among others. This case may delve into meatpuppetry too, but it would be interesting to see if anyone else thinks this behaviour is suspicious and not beneficial to Wikipedia. DRosin (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC) See Defending yourself against claims. [edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit] Conclusions
| | | | Jvolkblum - Jvolkblum (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
This page's archived case(s) are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jvolkblum/Archive
[edit] Report date November 23 2009, 13:35 (UTC) [edit] Suspected sockpuppets
- Long-banned Jvolkblum (talk · contribs) has been active lately so a check for sleepers is in order. This may be a waste of time since he makes heavy use of open proxies (Nishkid64 blocked about 150 of them last time) but anything that can be found will be helpful. Thanks. Wknight94 talk 13:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims. [edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments Wknight94, I assumed you wanted to file a request for CheckUser? Tiptoety talk 18:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC) - Uh, yes. Did I do something wrong? Those two boxes on WP:SPI confuse me... Thanks. Wknight94 talk 19:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- The box on the right is the one you want. No issues though; I'll do it for you. NW (Talk) 19:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Checkuser request - code letter: B + E (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism and community ban/sanction evasion)
- Current status -
 Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below. [edit] Conclusions - I have blocked a few proxies that I found. A range block doesn't seem possible for the non-proxy IPs. Unblocked accounts that are
 Confirmed are SHwater, Jeffy888, and Opti3rd. Dominic·t 08:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
| | | | Bambifan101 - Bambifan101 (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
This page's archived case(s) are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bambifan101/Archive
[edit] Report date November 26 2009, 03:43 (UTC) [edit] Suspected sockpuppets [edit] Evidence submitted by Rrburke - Mostly Disney Channel-related stuff, though the edits themselves are not typical BF101. Confesses on his/her talk page to being a sock, though not to being BF101/Disney vandal. All already blocked, but perhaps checkuser might flush out some sleepers that may have edited from the IP -- and other IPs the logged-in users may have edited from.
--Rrburke(talk) 03:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC) See Defending yourself against claims. - Comment since he's jumped IP range, also think a check would be good and see if a new range block would help. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- He just hit again from 70.146.227.196 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] CheckUser requests - Checkuser request - code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
- Current status - Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below. Requested by --Rrburke(talk) 03:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Clerk endorsed - To check for sleepers / perform an IP/range block if needed. Tiptoety talk 07:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments - Confirmed that the IP is HorseGirl070605, but it doesn't seem related to Bambifan101. It would be safe to give this IP a long-term block, as it is not shared and has been used by this one editor for nearly 2 months. Dominic·t 08:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Conclusions
| | | | ShareIntUK - ShareIntUK (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
[edit] Report date November 25 2009, 12:31 (UTC) [edit] Suspected sockpuppets
[edit] Evidence submitted by Ash The same nature (pasting almost identical text), timing of the creation of these SPAs and timing of edits on Benjamin Creme along with the suspect naming of these accounts being based on Creme's organization (Share International) makes it obvious that these are sock puppet accounts. Both accounts have edited the page within 24 hours. Sioffice edits see diff and ShareIntUK see diff. I note that the Sioffice account was created today at 12:19 and by 12:37 had made 5 contributions to the Benjamin Creme page including removing a large amount of properly sourced material. I would think that WP:QUACK applies.—Ash (talk) 12:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC) See Defending yourself against claims. [edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments  Administrator note: I have softblocked ShareIntUK for a blatant username violation and has warned Sioffice for COI. I'm going to sit on this case and see what happens here. If it continues, then we can hardblock both accounts. MuZemike 17:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Conclusions
| | | | Canadian Monkey - Canadian Monkey (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
[edit] Report date November 24 2009, 19:39 (UTC) [edit] Suspected sockpuppets suppose "new user" Breein1007 appear out nowhere and start making advance edit to only Israel related article similar to edit make by topic ban user Canadian Monkey. The breen user also also make edit very similar to recent ip user. Ani medjool (talk) See Defending yourself against claims.
You're such a joke ani medjool. I'm tired of this shit... don't have the patience to deal with these retards. Have fun with the investigation. Breein1007 (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments  Additional information needed Can you please provide us with some diffs linking the two accounts? Also, can you please link us to the topic ban in question. Thank you, Tiptoety talk 19:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)  Clerk note: The behavioral evidence here is not convincing here, as there are some significant differences in the editing and conversation styles. In addition, Canadian Monkey is stale. Unless you bring forth some evidence much stronger than what is currently above, I cannot make any conclusion here of sock puppetry with the evidence given. MuZemike 08:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] Conclusions
| | | | LaVidaLoca - LaVidaLoca (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
[edit] Report date November 24 2009, 06:12 (UTC) [edit] Suspected sockpuppets
[edit] Evidence submitted by Tre=poi I attempted to upgrade the article Ed Gein from an amateurish, sensationalistic style of writing that makes the grisly details of prime importance to a cool, detached professional level of writing that eschews such unencyclopedic writing and was dogged by LaVidaLoca who is using a sock to agree with me about the article's faults then claiming that her sock is actually me and sending me warnings about "sockpuppetry". She indicated a report is in the works about my "socking" though I've found no evidence of such a report. Claiming to file reports to the entire community can be disruptive. LaVidaLoca is now following me around to my other articles reverting my contributions in what I find to be a "Little Miss Smarty-Pants" style that is annoying and disruptive. She is now telling me one of my articles doesn't belong under the Kansas Project, and, while this may be true, I'd rather someone from the Kansas Project tell me rather than someone I suspect is trying to drive me from Wikipeidia because I advocate a professional style of reliably sourced writing rather than an amateurish, sensationalistic style which apparently is her preference. I left the Ed Gein article because "the old crowd" hanging out there seems to prefer the laugh-inducing, titillating Halloween House of Horrors grue style of writing rather than an objective, cool, professional style. While I appreciate learning the details of Wikipedia's style and policy, I wish it would come from someone other than she who appears to be dogging me in an attenpt to drive me completely from the premises. Check this user. While I want to assume good faith, I think User:LaVidaLoca is gaming the system with a sock to make it look like I'm the sock. Tre=poi (talk) 06:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC) This is a specious accusation that amounts more to a fishing expedition to deflect questions I raised about an IP that has never edited here before. The IP 64.252.140.1 traceroutes to Waterbury, Connecticut while I live in Ohio. The IP popped up immediately on Talk:Ed Gein to post support for Tre=poi on the talk page and then went straight to User talk:Tre=poi to post there, both postings by User talk:Tre=poi and the IP use similar language and descriptors. Fourteen minutes after the IP made those postings, Tre=poi posted a good article nomination notice on the talk page for a new article he had written. Given that at the time of those postings, User talk:Tre=poi had only been posting on Wikipedia for 4 days, this appeared very suspicious to me, and thus, considering WP:DUCK I confronted the editor about this. Of course, he denied it, but since the IP did not return to make other postings, I decided to drop it rather than pursue a sock investigation. When a brand new editor and an IP end up raising questions like this, it is not inappropriate to check other edits that were made by those editors. I have not reverted edits made by this editor inappropriately. I did remove excess project postings and left the relevant ones and I did so appropriately, in a non-confrontational manner. Since User:Tre=poi does not own the artice he wrote, it is ridiculous to claim that I am dogging him in an inappropriate manner. However, today, he deleted my posting explaining the rationale for removing the project banners from the article talk page, which is extremely inappropriate. Then again, how curious it is that an editor who had only been editing on Wikipedia for 4 days has written and nominated a brand new article for good article. Were I dogging him, I would have quick-failed the GA nomination because it does not meet GA criteria. This, though, is so much subterfuge that has nothing whatsoever to do with sockpuppetry, or in my case, the specious accusation of such. What a convoluted logic to claim that a long term editor on Wikipedia would go to the trouble of editing from an IP in order to "set someone up" or drive them away from Wikipedia. It's a ludicrous and fairly paranoid theory that is not based in any type of reality. This is a fishing expedition with no supporting evidence and I would request that this specious and ridiculous accusation be closed as unwarranted. LaVidaLoca (talk) 05:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC) - No, User:Sift&Winnow, there is no organized attempted to shut down that user or any other that I know. It has little to nothing in specific to do with that article. It has everything to do with what I outlined above regarding a new editor, a previously unused IP suddenly posting a support for the new editor and similarity in writing styles. It raised sock questions in my mind, and really, it is even more suspicious that the IP has never posted again. Posting this case is a fishing expedition to deflect questions and afford an opportunity to complain. There has been no evidence at all to support a sock accusation. Regardless, I live over 600 miles from the location of the IP, so this is a specious and ridiculous accusation. LaVidaLoca (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
This clearly has more to do with shutting down Tre=poi's efforts to edit the Ed Gein article than with any sockpuppetry. There seems to be an intolerance to making any improvements to that article. --Sift&Winnow 22:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit] Conclusions
|
[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 purge link.
[edit] Awaiting Clerk approval (view cases | edit cases )
| | |
Jdfielder
- Jdfielder (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
[edit] Report date November 26 2009, 03:03 (UTC) - Suspected sockpuppets
- Evidence submitted by -- Collectonian (talk · contribs)
Jdfielder and I got in a conflict over Bob Ross, after which he engaged in off wiki harassment, posting an "article" on his website attacking me. Since then, various "new" accounts keep popping up vandalizing articles with links to his article and making abusive remarks. These last two are just the latest. I know there were others but no longer remember their user names. Requesting check user to check for anymore sleepers, deal with Jdfielder himself (who has not yet been blocked) and hopefully block the underlying IP if possible. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comments by accused parties See Defending yourself against claims.
- Comments by other users
- CheckUser requests
- Checkuser request - code letter: F (Other reason )
- Current status -
 Awaiting initial clerk review. Requested by -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
- Conclusions
| | | | Chimeraweaver - Chimeraweaver (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
[edit] Report date November 25 2009, 04:16 (UTC) - Suspected sockpuppets
- Evidence submitted by -- Collectonian (talk · contribs)
All three accounts showing the same focus on the former Texas School Survey article and the Texas Department of State Health Services article, with each consistently making the same promo style edits. When Drugfreetexas' first edit was reverted by linkbot[4], Chimera popped up moments later to restore sans the bot triggering links[5]. Apparently someone at this place is trying to promote the survey or do some PR work. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC) - More than one person, other than myself, is contributing to this article from the same computer. Call it what you like, but it's not easy keeping up with the reverts by Collectonian and the others. I wish you guys would make it clearer why you removed our edits. I don't have time to read five pages of reasons why the removals took place. BTW, we don't work for DSHS just because we cite a government website page. - user: Chimeraweaver —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimeraweaver (talk • contribs) 04:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- It is clearly noted in the edit summaries and in the numerous warnings on your talk page why they were removed. Multiple people using the same computer to make the same edits to the same article is meatpuppetry and not that different from sockpuppetry in this case, as there is no way to verify that you are actually multiple people. Your only edits among you seem to be to promote the Texas State Survey, which is what makes it seem like you have some conflicts of interest, not your random linking to government websites. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
--The LinkBot automatically detected one of the website links shared the same words as the username of another editor and unjustly assumed conflict of interest based solely on this. That was a false assumption, so I reverted that edit and now we are being accused of a "meatpuppetry" conspiracy and doing "public relations" for a government agency, rather than merely raising awareness about it and its online activities. Nevertheless, I rarely edit pages but would like to continue editing the DSHS page in the future and will be the only editor from this computer doing so. In this effort, I would appreciate any polite guidance from the Wikipedia authorities rather than off-the-cuff accusations from editors like Collectonian. Collectoninan, you seem to have an unusual interest in the pages covering Texas DSHS and its State School Survey over the past months. How many pages do you watch over every day? - This commment made by user: Chimeraweaver —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimeraweaver (talk • contribs) 17:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC) -
- Linkbot did not unjustly assume a conflict of interest, it properly reverted the addition of inappropriate social links. Multiple WP:SPA accounts hitting a single set of articles with clearly promotional tones would raise red flags for any editor. Wikipedia is not here to "raise awareness" about an organization nor its activities. It is an encyclopedia. If a topic is notable, it will have an article, which includes neutrally worded, relevant, and reliably sourced information. How is my interest "unusual"? It came to my attention through your initial and beyond inappropriate efforts to spam links to your new article on hundreds of pages. There is nothing unusual about that, and of course I will continue to keep an eye on it after seeing the inappropriate activities that were going on. How many pages I watch is irrelevant and I really don't see the point of your question, but its also not like its private info. I currently have 1126 pages on my watchlist. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comments by accused parties See Defending yourself against claims.
- Comments by other users
- CheckUser requests
- Checkuser request - code letter: F (Other reason )
- Current status - Awaiting initial clerk review. Requested by -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
- Conclusions
| | | | Lear 21 - Lear 21 (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
[edit] Report date November 25 2009, 00:34 (UTC) [edit] Suspected sockpuppets Lear 21 and KJohansson have a remarkably similar modus operendi per WP:DUCK: the same editing interests (EU, great power, Berlin, Germany), same obstinate POV pushing/edit warring/disruptive behavior for months on end (Great power), same "see talk"/"update" edit summaries [6] [7] (a habit of leaving a message on the talk and making unilateral changes), a habit of making flippant personal attacks and accusations of ignorance/contravention of Wikipedia policies ([8] [9] [10]) [11], same location (Berlin) and same ISP (HANSENET-ADSL) etc. KJohansson claims to be from Sweden [12] but edits using the same ISP as Lear in Berlin [13]. If you would like more diffs I'd be more than happy to investigate further. Nirvana888 (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC) See Defending yourself against claims. [edit] CheckUser requests - Checkuser request - code letter: CODE LETTER (Unknown code )
- Current status - Awaiting initial clerk review. Requested by Nirvana888 (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit] Conclusions
|
[edit] Awaiting CheckUser (view cases | edit cases )
| | | Scibaby - Scibaby (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
This page's archived case(s) are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby/Archive
[edit] Report date November 24 2009, 15:55 (UTC) [edit] Suspected sockpuppets
Brand-new account, hit the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident article running, speaks Wiki-talk fluently, behavioral similarity to other recent Scibaby socks. Please not that recent Scibaby investigations uncovered two more sock-masters working on climate-related articles with a somewhat similar modus operandi, namely User: Tinpac (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tinpac/Archive) and User: Flegelpuss (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Scibaby/Archive#Report_date_November_22_2009.2C_02:05_.28UTC.29). From behavior only, these are difficult to separate, as they all behave similarly and push similar POVS. However, it is obvious that User: Alister Kinkaid is not a new user. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC) - I think behavioral evidence points strongly to AK being Scibaby. But I've been wrong before, and given the wikipolitical sensitivity of the Scibaby case it's worth a CU to confirm. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Another one added, User:Occam eraser, identified by User: BozMo. Again brand-new account. Added User:Pullister, who turned up with the usual patterns this morning. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC) See Defending yourself against claims. [edit] CheckUser requests - Checkuser request - code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
- Current status - Endorsed for Checkuser attention. Requested by Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Clerk endorsed - Tiptoety talk 19:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit] Conclusions
|
[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. (view cases | edit cases )
| | | Aradic-es - Aradic-es (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
This page's archived case(s) are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aradic-es/Archive
[edit] Report date November 25 2009, 18:03 (UTC) [edit] Suspected sockpuppets
[edit] Evidence submitted by PRODUCER Aradic is using the Quahadi account on WikiMedia [14] (obviously Aradics other account, note the links to Aradics other accounts) to continue his activity here in conjunction with IPs. [15] [16] [17] ◅ P R O D U C E R (TALK) 18:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC) See Defending yourself against claims. [edit] CheckUser requests - Checkuser request - code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
- Current status - Declined, the reason can be found below. Requested by ◅ P R O D U C E R (TALK) 18:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments - Clerk declined and Administrator note: - Quahadi is not a registered username on the English Wikipedia. As he has declared the use of the account on Commons, it is not a violation of the sock policy. The Aradic-en account is too stale for a checkuser to be run, but I have softblocked it as it is obviously Aradic-es' sockpuppet. I have also blocked this particular IP, which interestingly has moved away from the previous range. Could you please list any other IPs that you have seen editing in another SPI case? Thanks. NW (Talk) 16:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Conclusions  | This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser. |
|
[edit] Quick CheckUser requests This section is for CheckUser requests unrelated to sockpuppetry, such as: -
- Underlying IPs - identification and blocking for a longer term than autoblock.
- Collateral damage checks - before hardblocking IPs and ranges.
- Threats of harm (to self or others) - where the location and other details may be needed for law enforcement or medical authorities.
- IP block exemption checks - before granting IPBE or to confirm proper use.
Requests to investigate and confirm sockpuppetry should be listed in the sockpuppet section above. If posted here, they 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] Archived cases The following are old SPI cases, separated by month: |
