Revision as of 22:55, 2 March 2008 editNeparis (talk | contribs)5,969 edits reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:40, 9 March 2008 edit undoRlevse (talk | contribs)93,195 edits →User:82.201.156.201: closing | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{sspa}} | |||
===]=== | ===]=== | ||
;Suspected sockpuppeteer | ;Suspected sockpuppeteer | ||
Line 40: | Line 41: | ||
:*Thanks, Rudget. I'll put in an RFCU, including ], the commentator above, in the list of suspected socks. - ] (]) 22:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC) | :*Thanks, Rudget. I'll put in an RFCU, including ], the commentator above, in the list of suspected socks. - ] (]) 22:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC) | ||
;Conclusions | ;Conclusions | ||
Range too big to block, take to RFCU (which has not been filed as far as I can tell), to sort this out. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 16:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
---- | ---- | ||
</div> | </div> |
Latest revision as of 16:40, 9 March 2008
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:82.201.156.201
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
82.201.156.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
41.232.178.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
62.135.41.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
62.135.41.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
62.135.41.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
62.135.24.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
62.139.238.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
82.201.156.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
82.201.156.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
82.201.156.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
84.36.187.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
196.205.192.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
213.212.221.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
217.53.16.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
217.53.16.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
217.53.18.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
217.53.136.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Neparis (talk) 06:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Evidence
A spammer who is using a large and expanding number of Egyptian IP addresses is repeatedly adding links to three domains electojets.com, elect.awardspace.com/stepper/, and 1lo.info/stepping that have been identified by consensus on Talk:Electric motor#Spam as spam per WP:EL. One of the domains, electojets.com, is identifiable with an Egyptian registration: Abdoh Ali Mohamed, Hay Swesri, Nasr City, Cairo, Egypt.
All three domains have been spam-blacklisted on en-wiki, but this is no longer effective because the spammer has started using a url hiding service to beat the spam blacklist, planting disguised links to the domains .
- Comments
Nothing to say, because you just don't listen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.201.156.71 (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please explain what is your relationship to this case, and what is it that you would like to say but won't for fear of being ignored? Are you the person who has been repeatedly adding the links to the above domains? - Neparis (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: 82.201.156.71 is in the same Egyptian-registered IP address range 82.201.144.0 – 82.201.159.255 as several of the spamming IP addresses above. - Neparis (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not quite clear of what to do in cases where mass IPs have been used. I'd suggest trying WP:RFCU. If applicable you may wish to add more recent IPs as you go along. Rudget. 22:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, Rudget. I'll put in an RFCU, including 82.201.156.71, the commentator above, in the list of suspected socks. - Neparis (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Conclusions
Range too big to block, take to RFCU (which has not been filed as far as I can tell), to sort this out. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)