Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brexx: Difference between revisions

Feels strange to do it this way, but Nathan requested that I not go back through the top menu, but instead remark old cases with new data and edit the RFCU request. We'll see how this works. Me, I like the other way better already. Today, we have Havingatypicalemotionalupset (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is editing solely articles edited by the last few socks. He duped the editors at WP:RFPP into unprotecting Sweet Dreams (Beyoncé Knowles song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Jennifer Lopez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), using 69.198.44.221 to do so. Checkuser for proxies, and would someone please restore semi-protection to those articles?

Looking at a preview, I think this is absolutely the wrong way to go for opening new requests, as it causes everthing to get scrambled together. Please note that no one has checked Havingatypicalemotionalupset or the IP, no one has reached any conclusions about them, and neither have been blocked.—Kww(talk) 18:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

I need to stop welcoming these damn socks. — ξ ^xplicit 23:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser requests

{{RFCU}} is deprecated. Please change the case status parameter in {{SPI case status}} to "CURequest" instead.

Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )

Current status –

Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below. Requested by —Kww(talk) 22:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Somewhat out of place here, but I'll pretend to be a clerk for a moment: per Nathan's suggestion, I've removed the closed tag, and noted here that I have added Havingatypicalemotionalupset and 69.198.44.221.—Kww(talk) 19:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted NW (Talk) 22:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kww. (To be clear for others, I asked that Kww not add a new report when there is a report currently open. If previous reports are closed and archived, a new report is the way to go.) Nathan^T 01:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not proxies. Brandon (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear to me if Havingatypicalemotionalupset was checked, and what the result was.—Kww(talk) 04:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Confirmed, IP blocked. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged and blocked. NW (Talk) 23:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser.

{{SPIclose}} is deprecated. Please change the parameter in the {{SPI case status}} to "close" instead.

@@ Line 66: / Line 66: @@
 Not proxies. [[User:Brandon|Brandon]] ([[User talk:Brandon|talk]]) 03:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
+:Not clear to me if Havingatypicalemotionalupset was checked, and what the result was.&mdash;[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 04:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 ;Conclusions
 *{{confirmed}}, IP blocked. <span style="background:white;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">[[User:Nishkid64|Nishkid64]] </span><sub>([[User talk:Nishkid64|Make articles, not wikidrama]])</sub> 22:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)