Misplaced Pages

:Sockpuppet investigations/Greenock125/Archive: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations | Greenock125 Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:47, 5 June 2010 editKtr101 (talk | contribs)104,342 edits Archiving case from Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Greenock125← Previous edit Revision as of 12:54, 11 June 2010 edit undoElockid (talk | contribs)42,430 edits archiveNext edit →
Line 223: Line 223:
Am talking to the user, looks kinda promising. Might need periodic sweeps if he accepts his probation. ] 13:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Am talking to the user, looks kinda promising. Might need periodic sweeps if he accepts his probation. ] 13:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
{{SPIclose|archive}} {{SPIclose|archive}}
----

=====<big>11 June 2010</big>=====

{{SPIcat}}

<!-- Please do not add a header here -->

======<span style="font-size:150%"> Suspected sockpuppets </span>======
* {{checkuser|1=Sllewellyn7}}
<!-- Please duplicate the templates above ({{checkuser}} and {{checkIP}}) to list more accounts-->


======<span style="font-size:150%"> Evidence submitted by ] </span>======
I very nearly blocked this person the other day (see multiple warnings and ignoring of Talk Page communication, even blanking out warnings ), and I am still monitoring the situation, but I can't ignore the striking similarities between this person's editing style and choice of articles. Sllewellyn7 in particular has been around for a while, but I'd like a checkuser on this, just to be certain. Edits here are way to closely related to recent socks ], ] and ]. My ] senses are tingling on this one. Can a quick check be done here? - ] (]) 11:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


======<span style="font-size:150%"> Comments by accused parties </span>======
<small><span style="font-weight:normal">''See ].''</span></small>


======<span style="font-size:150%"> Comments by other users </span>======


======<span style="font-size:150%"> Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments </span>======
{{RFCU| E | No2ndletter | Checked}} &nbsp;&nbsp; <small>Requested by ] (]) 11:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC) </small>

No, he's {{unrelated}}, and that would have actually been surprising seeing that he had temporal overlap with Andy593 both while the latter was blocked and unblocked.<br>For the record, Andy593 did evade his block with John3705, briefly. ] 12:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
{{SPIclose|archive}}

---- ----

Revision as of 12:54, 11 June 2010



Greenock125

Greenock125 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Report date July 18 2009, 10:59 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Kww

WP:DUCK. Similar username, edits only articles about Pixie Lott.—Kww(talk) 10:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Blocked/tagged. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)



Report date July 22 2009, 11:13 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by TFOWR

Ignoring the unimaginative username, edits are to similar articles - particularly Pixie Lott (the article cited in Greenock125's previous SPI report). After editing in June 2008, no further editing occurred until today, 11 minutes after Greenock125's last edit (adding an unblock template - their attempt to unblock themselves appears to have failed, however, so don't be alarmed!) TFOWR 11:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk note: User indefinitely blocked by a patrolling admin. MuZemike 18:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.




Report date July 31 2009, 14:58 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Kww

This edit seems to be toying with us. Given that I'm confused by any possible motive, I think a checkuser is in order to see if this is a confession of block evasion or an attempt to get an innocent blocked. Given the contents of the IP's talk page, I'm inclined to believe that this is block evasion.—Kww(talk) 14:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Replying to Nathan: this edit is the major tie: Ryan1768 is trying to exit the autoblock, and is referring to the same IP address. The main editing overlap is British pop, which, given that the address is in Britain, I'm willing to concede is not strong evidence. The anonymous editing jumps back and forth between the Pixie Lott articles that are pretty obviously Greenock125, and the JLS articles that are the province of Ryan1768. It's apparent that at the very least, Greenock125 is using the anonymous IP to evade the block. So, the real question here is this: is it safe to hardblock 81.104.129.242 to get rid of Greenock125 for good? Or is doing so going to sweep up an innocent user? If Ryan1768 is the same user, a hardblock is appropriate. If they are clearly separate users, then maybe an IP block exemption is in order. One way or the other, something needs to be done to block the IP at some level.—Kww(talk) 00:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users
  • This edit is eerily reminiscent of Greenock125's level of quality control (it adds an album by VV Brown to JLS's discography). When I warned the IP about it, they promptly blanked their talk page - which was, if I remember correctly, Greenock125's usual response to warnings. Cheers, TFOWR 19:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Might also be worth considering Ryan1768, per this edit (Ryan1768 uses the IP address 81.104.129.242 while making an unblock request). Ryan1768's edits seem to coincide with Greenock125 and 81.104.129.242's, too. Cheers, TFOWR 16:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
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 —Kww(talk) 14:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 Clerk endorsed to determine connection between the IP and the two user accounts and to check if a hardblock would create any collateral damage or not. MuZemike 20:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  • Can we have some evidence that connects the two accounts? The "toying" diff above is from the already blocked account, but I don't see any obvious connection to the Ryan account? Nathan 23:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date August 30 2009, 14:44 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Kww

Strong overlap in editing articles, including some fairly obscure ones. They share a strong interest in Pixie Lott.

The following articles were created by Greenock125, and are being maintained by Rydogal123

Rydogal was created only two weeks after the last set of blocks were placed against Greenock125.—Kww(talk) 14:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users
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 —Kww(talk) 14:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 Clerk endorsed MuZemike 23:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions

 Likely Currently available technical and behavioral evidence indicates that it is likely that the names account is a Greenock sock. The IP listed above is  Inconclusive. -- Avi (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date November 22 2009, 07:55 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Tiptoety

Pending CheckUser evidence (opened for procedural purposes only). Tiptoety 07:55, 22 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 – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Tiptoety 07:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


02 June 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Ericorbit

The latest in a long list; looks rather DUCK-y to me.

  • Immediate joining of discographies project:
  • Immediate knowledge and use of chart tables macros:
  • Full list of socks here:
  • Most recent socks include User:RyanG222 and User:WeedDJ (latest user can also be checked against these).

Thanks in advance. - eo (talk) 11:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
  • Been a while since I last looked at Greenock125, but this recent edit by Andy593 seems strangely familiar (changing "== Charts ==" to "== Chart performance =="). The areas of interest seem to match Greenock125's favoured areas, too. TFOWR 11:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes... most recent sock investigation(s) were for RyanG222. The checkuser for WeedDJ linked it to Greenock999, who is obviously a sock of Greenock125, so I attempted to bunch all of the socks together under Greenock125 for consistency's sake. - eo (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by eo (talk) 11:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and blocked based on the loud quacking. Checkuser still required in my view to find an underlying IP to block: this is getting ridiculous.—Kww(talk) 20:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Any chance we can get this person back into the fold? I have noticed this editor over the last couple of days, and while their edits weren't flawless, they were in parts certainly improvements. He's even using your template. :)
Assuming this is the same user, I notice he asked for a second change on User talk:Rydogal123 over half a year back. Would there be concerns to try and mentor him back? Amalthea 20:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I sympathize with your view, and that's the reason I was reluctant when Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/RyanG222/Archive started getting active. The tomfoolery there gives me pause. I'd be willing to mentor him on my usual 6 month probation/0RR/no alternate account rules if we could get him to agree and you would agree to periodically sweep for socking.—Kww(talk) 21:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I had only read the RyanG222 SPI archive after I wrote the above, I initially only looked into this one's archive for the last sock. The talk page of that user and the ANI report give me pause, too. Let's see if he comments on the situation. Amalthea 21:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Am talking to the user, looks kinda promising. Might need periodic sweeps if he accepts his probation. Amalthea 13:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
11 June 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Ericorbit

I very nearly blocked this person the other day (see multiple warnings and ignoring of Talk Page communication, even blanking out warnings ), and I am still monitoring the situation, but I can't ignore the striking similarities between this person's editing style and choice of articles. Sllewellyn7 in particular has been around for a while, but I'd like a checkuser on this, just to be certain. Edits here are way to closely related to recent socks User:RyanG222, User:WeedDJ and User:Andy593. My WP:DUCK senses are tingling on this one. Can a quick check be done here? - eo (talk) 11:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by eo (talk) 11:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No, he's Red X Unrelated, and that would have actually been surprising seeing that he had temporal overlap with Andy593 both while the latter was blocked and unblocked.
For the record, Andy593 did evade his block with John3705, briefly. Amalthea 12:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.