| Revision as of 04:05, 16 June 2010 editShock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk | contribs)15,524 edits →Comments by other users: addendum← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:52, 16 June 2010 edit undoStephan Schulz (talk | contribs)Administrators26,889 edits →Evidence submitted by Stephan Schulz: AddNext edit → | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| ] is currently banned and blocked. However, he comments off-wiki about ] . I find the story presented there implausible - it's much more likely that he actually created the sock, or at least has independent knowledge about it. Please check any connections between the three listed accounts. I suspect ] is stale - if not, please consider my hypothesis. --] (]) 23:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC) | ] is currently banned and blocked. However, he comments off-wiki about ] . I find the story presented there implausible - it's much more likely that he actually created the sock, or at least has independent knowledge about it. Please check any connections between the three listed accounts. I suspect ] is stale - if not, please consider my hypothesis. --] (]) 23:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :Added ], who now tries to pass off the fake socks as real socks via ]. --] (]) 00:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC) | :Added ], who now tries to pass off the fake socks as real socks via ]. --] (]) 00:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::] has commented on the case in a new blog post, , claiming that he is not behind the socks. I won't go into detail, but I find it interesting that he points out ] as the origin of the name of the third sock - something I was not aware of. To me this again suggests involvement, but it may, of course, also be simply a sign of a certain obsession with WMC. --] (]) 11:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ======<span style="font-size:150%"> Comments by accused parties </span>====== | ======<span style="font-size:150%"> Comments by accused parties </span>====== | ||
Revision as of 11:52, 16 June 2010
GoRight
GoRight (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Populated account categories: suspected
For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/GoRight/Archive.
13 June 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
- VLB Pocketspup (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- STOATblog (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Cursing Gnome (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- SafelyAnonymous (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Evidence submitted by Stephan Schulz
All three users listed as socks simulate or repeat edits and edit comments made by User: William M. Connolley (if in different contexts). The first two one also contain references to this user in the user name (VLB->WMC, Stoat is WMC's off-wiki blog). The edits are certainly made by a user with significant Misplaced Pages-experience. User:GoRight is currently banned and blocked. However, he comments off-wiki about User:VLB Pocketspup here. I find the story presented there implausible - it's much more likely that he actually created the sock, or at least has independent knowledge about it. Please check any connections between the three listed accounts. I suspect User: GoRight is stale - if not, please consider my hypothesis. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Added User:SafelyAnonymous, who now tries to pass off the fake socks as real socks via Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/William M. Connolley. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- User:GoRight has commented on the case in a new blog post, here, claiming that he is not behind the socks. I won't go into detail, but I find it interesting that he points out User:William_M._Connolley/For_me/The_curse_of_gnome as the origin of the name of the third sock - something I was not aware of. To me this again suggests involvement, but it may, of course, also be simply a sign of a certain obsession with WMC. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users
I'm going to have to agree with Stephan. These socks, making edits that are seemingly identical to William Connolley, must be the work of GoRight! The crypto-sock sock theory! Shall I safely assume that all socks in this area are skeptics now? Oh wait Ratel doesn't fit into that pattern....unless he is was a victim of a crypto-sock attack as well. We should look into this. Luckily this new bogeyman behavior has conveniently come to light just in time to show Arbcom what you have to deal with. Congratulations on once again discovering socks with lightning speed Stephan. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Not a helpful comment. ++Lar: t/c 21:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- GoRight is technically highly proficient so checkuser will be of limited use in confirming lack of association. There are some possibilities of less obvious connections but more likely any socks of GoRight would be undetectable by technical means, unless he wants them to be detected. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- And your point in raising this is... ? ATren (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, how do you know this about GoRight? Cool Hand Luke 03:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- He's posted some fairly complex scripts for parsing user contributions and the like. Admittedly there's a slight bit of extrapolation involved, but I think it's likely he knows what's in an httpd log file, and I also assume that checkuser basically works by parsing httpd logs or something similar. In any event the technical measures required to defeat checkuser are a poorly kept secret. Addendum: It takes about 30 seconds with google to find the source code for the checkuser extension to MediaWiki. And once you have the source code... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
{{RFCU}} is deprecated. Please change the case status parameter in {{SPI case status}} to "CURequest" instead.
- Checkuser request – code letter: E + B (Community ban/sanction evasion and ongoing serious pattern vandalism)
- Current status –
Endorsed for Checkuser attention. Requested by Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Clerk endorsed - I'm not sure who those are, but a check is definitely warranted, if only for sleepers and IP blocks. BTW, GoRight is not stale yet. T. Canens (talk) 04:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Categories: