Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations
- 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), a centralized forum regarding suspicions of sock puppetry amongst users as well as any additional CheckUser requests.
| 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 Wikipedia; if they are important evidence, you must also seek advice by email first. |
Important notes
- Before submitting a case, check that there isn't one already in progress using the search button at the bottom of this page.
- Please provide evidence (preferably with diffs and any reasonable deductions and impressions as a result) that show disruption or deception via IPs or accounts via sock puppetry. Cases without any evidence or with solely vague beliefs or assumptions will likely be rejected.
- Remember to assume good faith when possible.
- 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. - Keep it simple. Simple, concisely presented evidence leads to a quickly resolved case.
- Do I need to request CheckUser?
- CheckUser is a tool used by a small number of trusted users. It allows them to access evidence from Wikipedia's server logs to help resolve the case. For most cases, behavioral evidence is enough, with no need for CheckUser.
- To request CheckUser, there must be credible evidence supporting the suspicion of sockpuppetry or abuse, 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). Finally, while CheckUser will not be used to confirm that a user is editing from a specific IP address; quick requests may be made for the purpose of getting an underlying IP address or range blocked, however a CheckUser will not disclose what that IP address is. - If you see a purported suicide note or threat of harm (try IRC first in an emergency, at #wikipedia-en-spi connect).
| Requesting checkuser work for an existing case |
|---|
|
Anyone can request CheckUser at any time on an open case if it is necessary. If you wish to request CheckUser to any existing open case, then do the following:
|
- Quick CheckUser requests
If you need a CheckUser to review something, but it does not fall into the above categories, please see here for instructions.
- Administrator's instructions
If any administrator wants to help out at SPI, but is 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.
Submitting an SPI case
Create the case by replacing "SOCKMASTER" in the white box below with the user name of the oldest account (the "sockmaster"), or the previous case name, and then clicking the button under the box. 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 white box, and then click the button under the box. You will be taken to the next page, where there is a form to fill out giving the details of your report. Note that this form should be used for both opening a case for the first time, as well as opening a new case for a previous sockmaster.
If CheckUser might be needed, change |checkuser=no to |checkuser=yes in the edit box.
| Start or continue an SPI case here |
|---|
|
|
See also
- SPI clerks and clerking
- List of indicator icons used at SPI
- Suspected sock puppets and Requests for checkuser – predecessors to SPI which both ceased as of January 2009
- The SPI bot's edits.
Case status summary
Case status summary |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Open cases
Cases
GMTV Chart Show |
|---|
|
GMTV Chart Show
This page's archived case(s) is/are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GMTV Chart Show/Archive.
25 February 2012
Continued error-vandalism by this long-running sockpuppet - most obvious examples are edits [[1]], [[2]] plus repeated attempts at [[3]] and [[4]], continuing the pattern of inserting bogus information into children's TV articles, almost always mentioning The Children's Channel in some way or another. Both IPs resolve to *-dynamic.b-ras2.dbn.dublin.eircom.net addresses, as per previous activity. Continues despite all warnings and blocks. Bonusballs (talk) 11:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
26 February 2012
Continued insertion of bogus TCC-related information into articles - e.g. [[5]] and [[6]] (this article in particular is a constant target, maybe it needs protection) and further irrelevant mentions in[[7]], [[8]] and [[9]] Bonusballs (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments |
DBigXray |
|---|
|
DBigXray
This page's archived case(s) is/are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DBigXray/Archive. 25 February 2012
This was an idle article never edited by any of the mentioned IPs. I nominated it for deletion today as it did not have any RS, the creator acknowledged to be a school alumni at help desk [10]. Later after some debate, these IPs show up reiterating creator's views [11] [12] [13]. They are either meat-puppets or sock puppets per WP:DUCK. Also note the alternating editing by the user and these IPs at around the same time [14]. He also notified all editors who ever edited that page, don't think that is usually done, only major contributors and creator are notified - won't that be canvassing in addition to this? (I could be wrong on this specific point). [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. lTopGunl (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Comments by DBIgXRayThe above user TOpgun was wikihounding me, following my comment on help desk he nominated the artcle for deletiion. the 3 IPS above
this is nothing but a case of constant malice against me, as the editor TopGun had many cases of disputes with me in past
The link for earlier failed SP case against me by TopGun another example of |assuming BAD faith Comments by TopGunThis was not a hounding incident, as the DBigXray himself states this was after a helpdesk reply (where I regularly edit), hounding is done from contributions list. I simply nominated article based on its own merits. The 'alumni' however seem to be meat puppets at very best. Any previous disputes I've had with this editor are long idle and this should be treated independently own its own merits. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments |
Ceco31 |
|---|
|
Ceco31
26 February 2012
I suspect that Ceco31 and user with IPs 130.204.140.105 and 81.229.53.130 could be one and the same person. Listed suspect has made a series of significant alteration in a short period of time in the article Turks in Bulgaria some of which clearly unsourced and containing POV against the article. Please see below first edit by user 130.204.140.105 and later the same by Ceco31, in between there are 4 edits by IP 130.204.140.105 and 4 edits by IP 81.229.53.130: [22] [23]. As an additional evidence looking at the edit history for Template:Turks at [[24]] user IP:s 130.204.140.105 and 81.229.53.130 have been making simultaneus edits to the same template and some times within minutes of each other. Hittit (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Hittit (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
|
Ali55te |
|---|
|
Ali55te
27 February 2012
Big likely to be sockpuppet of Ali55te as both appear same time in Articles. NovaSkola (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
|
Thesoul6 |
|---|
|
Thesoul6
27 February 2012
Reggaeton , edit wars on the reggaeton article, has been, deletion of sourced material and replacement of them with nationalist or biased original research, both the ip and the soul happen to have the same interest in the same articles, reggaeton, reggae en espanol and dembow dominicano, and do exactly the same thing Examples Diffs http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reggaeton&oldid=478887167 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reggaeton&oldid=478813760 el diablo es la ignorancia (talk) 05:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments |
Asgardian |
|---|
|
Asgardian
This page's archived case(s) is/are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asgardian/Archive. 27 February 2012
Same behaviour to previous sock accounts and IPs used by Asgardian. I noticed that the edit summary written as "No source for claim" from the IP he currently uses in God of War: Betrayal is similar to the one from IP 60.241.188.222 in The Citadel of Chaos, which also said "No source for claim". --HOUNDER4 (TALK) (CHANGES) 18:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments |
Yurikzaka |
|---|
|
Yurikzaka
28 February 2012
This user is intent on creating havoc here on Wikipedia. He started as Yurikzaka, adding gobbledygook and his own name, Yura Zakaryan, to Marilyn vos Savant. An example of his additions is: "A competitor to Marilyn is Yura Zakaryan from James Madison Middle School. Yura is the smartest person right next to Marilyn vos Savant." Even after his unconstructive edits were reverted twice by two different editors, he persisted in damaging the article for Marilyn vos Savant. His first edit under the name Yurikzaka was (diff) Revision as of 00:26, 26 February 2012, showing that he has no respect for the rules at Wikipedia, and is just here to cause disruption. When the said editor was finally warned with a level 3 warning for his persistent vandalism to "Marilyn vos Savant", he created a sockpuppet named Aloyanale, and continued to deface the same article, again adding the name "Yura Zakaryan" and some other names to the article, replacing all content with nonsense (i.e. blanking the article and adding gibberish instead). With the new sockpuppet Aloyanale, he also tried to vandalize another article, Armenian language -- see diff. The sockpuppet named "Yurikzaka" has shown no good intentions here at Wikipedia. He is purely here for either self-promotion or outright vandalism. It is also worth noting that an article Yura zakaryan was created recently and had to be speedily deleted twice in short succession for reasons of G2 and A7. The article in question was probably created by this same sockpuppet, as the Log for Yurikzaka shows a creation time of this new user account just prior to the above deletions of the article. Skol fir (talk) 07:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin commentsI do not see a need to run a checkuser here -it's obvious the two accounts are the same, based on their edits. I would guess they are classmates. TNXMan 14:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC) |
119.154.67.223 |
|---|
|
119.154.67.223
28 February 2012
I issued a last notice warning about edit-warring, which I then followed up with a gentle notice, kindly asking the IP to engage in talk-page discussions and to provide edit summaries. The edit-warring, with rigid reinsertions and stereotypical grammatical-error tics, continues unchanged from the 2 new neighboring IP addresses. There should be a range block. (IMHO the rigidity of the behavior suggests little reason to wish that this editor can improve.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin commentsAccording to robtex, this range extends to a /13. Just going off the IPs you listed, the range is a /17, which is technically feasibly, but would cause a tremendous amount of collateral. TNXMan 19:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC) |
Instantnood |
|---|
|
Instantnood
This page's archived case(s) is/are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Instantnood/Archive. 28 February 2012
147.8.102.172 was blocked for a week on 22 February. This new IP has reinstated 102.172's comments on Talk:Republic of China, saying in the edit summary "Why are my comments struck out and collapsed?" It seems obvious to me that he is both evading his block and demonstrating yet sock account. I should also point out that the move discussion at Talk:Republic of China has been plagued by SPAs, including Instandnood's socks. This is proving very disruptive. John Smith's (talk) 12:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC) In retrospect I don't think a checkuser is necessary. 147.8.202.87 has shot himself in the foot. John Smith's (talk) 12:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments |
Jshan826 |
|---|
|
Jshan826
This page's archived case(s) is/are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jshan826/Archive. 28 February 2012
Latest in a row of sockpuppets edit warring on Optometry. Quacks like a duck. Others have been indefinitely blocked. Chrisieboy (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments |
70.59.31.70 |
|---|
|
70.59.31.70
28 February 2012
After months of discussion on the clothianidin talk page between a relatively small number of editors (one or two environmental advocates on one side arguing for continued focus on their controversies and WikiProject Chemistry members, including me, on the other), there has been a veritable swarm of activity recently by users known only by their IP addresses. These IP address users attack virtually every edit I suggest and also cross the line into inappropriate behavior sometimes. One of them, User 70.59.31.70, was blocked for three months after posting what I felt was inappropriate content on the clothianidin talk page on February 24, 2012. User 70.59.31.70 had no edits other than the ones that got the IP blocked. Statements made by User 70.59.31.70 regarding lawsuits against USEPA, asserting a conflict of interest, are very similar to comments I am seeing now for user 222.165.255.198. In addition to curious similarities in their POV and points of debate, User 222.165.255.198 shows extraordinary proficiency for a newbie with no edits other than those done today. After a few posts to the clothianidin talk page, User 222.165.255.198 tagged the clothianidin page for POV and COI, something I don't even know how to do and I've been here studying up on policies and procedures for almost a year! The conflict of interest tag is particularly interesting in that it echoes a similar, concurrent complaint about my user name that arose mysteriously out of nowhere that has since been resolved. It also is consistent with environmental advocate/editor Gandydancer's opening comment in response to my proposal to modify the WP:CHEMMOS. User 49.50.8.85 similarly showed up out of the blue, arguing for the continued inclusion of content reflecting advocates' favorite controversies that is supported only by primary research. I can't say for sure that what is going on is sock puppetry or meat puppetry, but some form of puppetry appears to be afoot. I apologize for troubling you if I am mistaken. Also, in the interest of disclosure, there are so many complaints being filed against me and new IP users showing up and causing trouble that I have several discussions going on these various topics right now. This is not a case of me forum shopping. I am simply responding to the various issues as they arise; I believe they are all inter-related yet distinct issues. USEPA James (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC) USEPA James (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. I have nothing to hide, but I strongly recommend looking at USEPA James (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser (log)) and Tcprosser (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser (log)) both have been attempting to remove reliably sourced mentions of bee toxicity from two different but closely related neonicotinoid insecticides over the same time frame. It would be prudent to confirm whether USEPA James is in fact editing from an EPA address, as he has been doing so during US business hours and has claimed official approval for his edits since the creation of his account a few months after the creation of Tcprosser's. 222.165.255.198 (talk) 01:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello - This is tcprosser - My understanding is that wikipedia is a place for neutral and unbiased information. There is a strong agenda by 222.165.255.198 to put biased and partial truths about this issue of bees. My information was cited (removed by someone) and then my insertions were taken down. Whoever is using wikipedia to spread disinformation should be looked at closely "grandydancer" etc and not allowed to edit. I am interested in the truth and not an extremist viewpoint. I want to bring integrity to this and make sure it is balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcprosser (talk • contribs) 18:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
|
Echigo mole |
|---|
|
Echigo mole
This page's archived case(s) is/are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole/Archive. 29 February 2012
Usual self-referential trolling on an arbcom page. This is now the 6th or 7th time on this particular page. Mathsci (talk) 07:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
|
IKatyCats |
|---|
|
IKatyCats
29 February 2012
GouramiWatcher (Gulp) 17:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin commentsI'm not sure what's going on -could you add some explanation as to why these accounts are being operated in violation of policy? (On an unrelated note, it also appears your signature is longer than the recommended 255 character limit. If you have a moment, please review Wikipedia:Signatures#Length -let me know if you have questions.) TNXMan 17:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Bobby1219 |
|---|
|
Bobby1219
29 February 2012
All (almost certainly school kids) making minor puerile edits to Big Butte Creek. It would be good to coral them and then start the education programme to be good editors Velella Velella Talk 20:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments |
Caparrzzo02 |
|---|
|
Caparrzzo02
29 February 2012
WP:DUCK - both accounts are solely used for genre-warring, including deleting citations in order to push POV. The IP made it to a level 4 warning (including this edit) whereapon it ceased editing and the named sockmaster took over with continued genre-warring including this identical edit. ŞůṜīΣϹ98¹Speak 22:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments |
HenryKissinger01 |
|---|
|
HenryKissinger01
29 February 2012
See editing pattern at H. A. Hellyer ukexpat (talk) 22:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments |
98.216.188.72 |
|---|
|
98.216.188.72
29 February 2012
(IPs placed in chronological order of vandalism, original offender placed as sockmaster). All accounts have made edits to Chris Jericho (between yesterday and today) asserting he is the inventor of Canada. Evidence for IPs in order of listing: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]. Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments |
Gaydenver |
|---|
|
Gaydenver
This page's archived case(s) is/are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gaydenver/Archive.
26 February 2012
USer started editing the Obama article with one of his/her first edits, restoring claims made another editor accusing Wikipedia of "pro Obama bias" and "propaganda". The user then went to ANI the same day, after making 2 edits concerning Obama. The user was blocked for edit warring on the Obama article, and disrupting the Talk page. The user then stopped editing for more than 2 years, and has now went directly back to the Obama article. UCC is better than Christian edits Midemer JB50000 I am the only non-biased editor on Wikipedia, everyone else is a Obama fan or "inbreeder" Midemer JB50000 "We have consensus"(false claims of consensus, even when obviously is not true) Midemer JB50000 Now, to me, this is a painfully obvious DUCK, but a CU should be done in order to flush out any other accounts this user has. And after all these accounts keep popping up, it's obvious he/she has them. Dave Dial (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Do I have to spill the beans on the obvious here? How in the world could this user claim "User:Jack Patern was accused and banned without even a checkuser done" within 10 minutes of being notified of this case? Or even if that was true or not? Come on, Jack Patern isn't even listed in the archives of this case. There is more, but it's disappointing that this user can troll page after page with the same silliness without a CU done, so I'm washing my hands of these games and naivete. Have a good day Dave Dial (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. David Dial is a POV-pusher who accuses everyone he doesn't like as being a sock. User:Jack Patern was accused and banned without even a checkuser done. This tactic of accusations against editors who you don't like must stop. If the checkuser shows no link (and there isn't because I am not these people), then David Dial should be blocked for incivility and edit warring. Midemer (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC) But there is an indication that Gaydenver is an employee of the City of Denver. I am far, far away from Denver. I am close to Valley Village, a neighborhood of Los Angeles. Midemer (talk) 04:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Some of the accusations are false. I never said I am the only unbiased editor in Wikipedia. I am not delusional. There are thousands of unbiased editors and only a few disruptive, POV pushers, like DD2K, the complainer in this complaint. He should be CU'ed against his sock, Python something.Midemer (talk) 04:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
|
Cases: Administrator Action Needed
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 request may only be made by a Clerk or Checkuser.
- If your case is not showing up here, or this section seems out of date, please click the .
Awaiting clerk approval
Awaiting Checkuser
Questionable pulse |
|---|
|
Questionable pulse
11 February 2012
As I am a checkuser myself, albeit inexperienced, and based on plausible behavorial and timing evidence from the edit histories of the articles NXIVM and Keith Raniere, I did a preliminary check to see if this seemed worthy of further investigation. In my opinion based on what I saw there, it does at least warrant a closer look. I seek help from a more experienced checkuser. I have sent my results privately to checkuser-l. Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
|
Billy Hathorn |
|---|
|
Billy Hathorn
This page's archived case(s) is/are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Billy Hathorn/Archive.
29 February 2012
See this page for discussion of the WP:DUCK evidence. CU is requested for confirmation and to see if there are other socks. Orlady (talk) 17:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
|
Quick Checkuser requests
This section is for CheckUser requests unrelated to sockpuppetry, such as:
-
- Underlying IPs for identification and blocking for a longer term than autoblock.
- Collateral damage checks for the informed hardblocking of IPs or ranges.
- Threats of harm (to self or others) where the location and other details is needed law enforcement or medical authorities; but in actual emergencies, emergency
wikimedia.org should be used instead. - IP block exemption checks before granting IPBE (or to confirm it is being used constructively).
Requests to investigate and confirm sockpuppetry should be listed in the sockpuppet section above. If such a request is posted here, it will be summarily delisted by a Clerk or CheckUser.
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}}
BlazeTheMovieFan
| This case has been marked as closed. |
- BlazeTheMovieFan (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser (log))
Hello, I'm kind of uncertain of what to do about this, which seems to be a case of somebody's account becoming compromised. Do we normally block the IP of the hacker? Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- A CU can probably provide some evidence on whether the account was indeed compromised. I'm not aware of any practice of blocking the hacker's IP, though. T. Canens (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Juding by other edits of this account from a few months ago like it doesn't appear to be compromised, I'm afraid. Amalthea 23:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, so he turned vandal. I'll update the block message. :/ Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Juding by other edits of this account from a few months ago like it doesn't appear to be compromised, I'm afraid. Amalthea 23:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Soapfan2013
| This case has been marked as closed. |
- Soapfan2013 (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser (log))
This user appears to need IP block exemption as he is caught in a rangeblock right now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Archived cases
The following are old SPI cases, separated by month. This archival system was deprecated in February 2010.
| 2009 | |||
| January | February | March | April |
| May | June | July | August |
| September | October | November | December |
| 2010 | ||
| January | February | March |
| April | May | June |
| July | August | September |
| October | November | December |
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) |
|
|---|
|
||||||||||||||