Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Non-compliant: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Ed (talk | contribs)
6,213 edits
m Reverted edits by Ed (talk) to last version by Greeves
Line 15: Line 15:
Please note that '''meeting these three criteria does not ensure that your check will be run'''. The checkusers retain final discretion over all cases.
Please note that '''meeting these three criteria does not ensure that your check will be run'''. The checkusers retain final discretion over all cases.
</div>
</div>
{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/American Brit}}
----
{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Rugby 666}}
{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Rugby 666}}
----
----

Revision as of 02:49, 19 March 2007

NC

Non-compliant requests

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

  • Did not cite a code letter.
  • Cited more than one code letter.
  • Did not cite any supporting diffs if the code letter requires diffs.

The specific deficiencies will be noted with Additional information needed. Cases which are corrected may be moved back to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Pending. Cases which are not corrected will be deleted after 3 days. If you have questions, ask for assistance at Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Non-compliant.

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

Rugby 666

request links: view • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 02:59, 17 March 2007
  • Code letter: F

Rugby 666 was blocked for one months (then two months, now indefinitely) for abusive sockpuppeteering (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ehinger222). The present socks are simply extensions of an enormous sockfarm dating right back to user:licinius/user:NSWelshman etc...

Reddoll17 (talk · contribs), Signor12345 (talk · contribs), Fifa1998 (talk · contribs), Wacko Jacko2 (talk · contribs), Redneckyank (talk · contribs) all tucked into some edit warring with tancred (talk · contribs), in particular over Marconi Stadium, reminiscent of edit wars started by 147.10.112.157 (talk · contribs).

144.132.221.157 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - almost certainly. even calling tancred (talk) a troll (a habit of other socks of rugby 666 (talk · contribs) in edit summaries. even questioned the legitimacy of bans imposed by essjay.

Ehinger222 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - this is the big papa, this one's been going for ages and ages, spawning new puppets and puppeteer accounts. See the belowmentioned link to RFCU. past CU processes haven't been able to check him as activity was too old, but has been active recently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dibo (talk • contribs)

 Additional information needed Please include a diff of the discussion that resulted in the ban or block. Thanks! Greeves (talk • contribs) 23:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's continued activity here as can seen:
  • In the article on Footy blindly reverting an edit that actually tried to find a bit of wiggle room between two more extreme positions.
  • In the article on Robert Brasillach repeatedly inserting a bit of text that is neither especially relevant nor supported by any verifiable source
  • edit warring over the page Australian National Football Team
petty edits to a number of pages. Latest is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007_Australian_football_code_crowds&diff=116979406&oldid=116782761

This user has had over 12 months of warnings, currently evades bans by editing with IP's, always pushes the same POV rubbish. If Wikipedia is serious about stamping out this problem his/her ISP needs to be contacted, or at the very least, the IP range given a serious ban. He/she has been warned in the past, has been banned, how long is this going to be allowed to contine for? Personally I am sick of logging in twice a day, just to remove rubbish edits! I'm sure others feel the same.Tancred 09:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Some more comments

Both these IP's are in the same CIDR block. They are both controlled by Telstra - an Australian ISP. Editors that use these IP's have been pushing a POV for over 12 months here. These edits all take the same form. The editor picks 1-2 words each week, edits for his POV and then spends a week or so reverting despite what other editors suggest. How do I know they are the same person? A number of things. The constant refusal to sign any comments is one key. User talk:Rugby_666 was finally banned. That case can be looked at here:
‎Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ehinger222
‎Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-27 Alan Oakley
‎Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ehinger222 (2nd)
‎Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ehinger222
‎Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Rugby 666

The Rubgy League POV pushing stopped for a short time but quickly started up again. Some examples: User 147.10.112.157 (A known Ehinger222 IP) made this edit [1] about Marconi Stadium. A week later the plans for a new stadium development were called off and the article updated. Then 5 new accounts were created, just to revert back to the now incorrect edit:

Reddoll17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Signor12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Fifa1998 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Wacko Jacko2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Redneckyank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

After this the user has given up with registering new usernames and just uses IP's. His/Her latest series of edits are nothing more than tweaking Wikipedia for POVness. [2], [3], [4]. not to mention the endless POV stuff here [5].

here [6], both 144.132.217.29 (talk · contribs · count) 144.132.221.157 (talk · contribs · count) revert the page back to edits made by Rugby666, one of the banned usernames.

Given this has been going on for for many months, something really needs to be done. I would call for at least raising this ongoing wikipedia attack with the ISP, and blocking the IP range. Tancred 12:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The blocks previously followed from the discussion quoted here and the previous RFCU cases archived below on this page.

 Clerk note: Removed content copied from Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ehinger222 -- probably better to link. You may want to check and make sure I didn't accidentally erase anything I shouldn't have, but please do try to keep any further comments brief. Thanks! – Luna Santin (talk) 02:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no, that looks fine. Dibo T | C 03:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined No evidence of a community ban. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ban is here (that's user:Rugby 666's ban). Plus the editor in question admited the bans here. Plus check out the bunch of RFCU cases below. I realise this is somewhat irregular to revive a case in this manner, but frankly I'm mystified as to why it ever got rejected. Dibo T | C 13:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: According to the tag on the userpage, there must be an Arbcom case somewhere, I couldn't find it though. User:Luna Santin is the one who put the tag, maybe he'll remember where it comes from? -- lucasbfr talk 13:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... not sure which template I used, on that, honestly. =\ Whatlinkshere reveals discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive65#Advice on User:Rugby 666's edits and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive67#User:Rugby 666. Neither of those clearly mentions a ban, however. I'm going to break neutrality and should recuse myself from further clerking as relates to this case, but given the prior checks, numerous blocks, repeated sockpuppetry, and assorted abuse warranting month-long rangeblocks, couldn't this be submitted under letter G? – Luna Santin (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined. Every one of those accounts is too old to check. Dmcdevit·t 07:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Non-compliant&oldid=116165757"