Misplaced Pages

:Sockpuppet investigations/Jacurek - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] 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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Timotheus Canens (talk | contribs) at 17:14, 14 June 2011 (→Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments: blocked Jacurek + likely, filling out AE paperwork). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:14, 14 June 2011 by Timotheus Canens (talk | contribs) (→Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments: blocked Jacurek + likely, filling out AE paperwork)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Jacurek

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

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Jacurek/Archive.

– A checkuser has completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.

08 June 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

These are socks left over from Jacurek's latest topic ban evasion . Other sockpuppets from the same editing spree that have already been identified and blocked on 17 May and subsequent socks identified and blocked on 24 May are listed here for the record:

Requested actions:

  • indef block of the sockmaster, given his record of socking/ban evasion/other disruption
  • indef block of the not-yet-blocked sockpuppet accounts
  • indiscriminate revert of the sockpuppets' contribs to not encourage further socking; many contribs of the blocked as well as the still unblocked socks are still online
  • consider if the IPs are likely to be used again by Jacurek, then block
  • probably categorize/template the sock and sockmaster accounts Skäpperöd (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

  • If Jacurek is socking, after what happened before, he deserves all he gets. But I seem to be unable to find a rationale above as to why the socks are supposed to be Jacurek's. I do not consider myself an expert in SPI investigations, but looking at the archive, I see one sock blocked for behavioral evidence (no IP-proof) in 2010, and another last month, controversially as the user admitted it was an unintentional meatpuppet, and IP evidence was not conclusive (great way to reward editors for being honest). And now there is this weird sock farm. I think we are dealing with some disruptive user who needs to be stopped, but whether it is Jacurek, or somebody else, that is not clear to me. Through FSP seems to have no doubts, I have my own doubts about his attitude towards Jacurek (seeing as he once given him a few months block for a single uncivil comment...). Either way, we should figure out who is being disruptive, and if possible, block some IP range, but let's be open to the possibility it is not Jacurek. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I counted 13 sockpuppets. Again this is if there are actually his sockpuppets. Anyways, Piotrus hit the jackpot, as we cannot block a user without sufficient evidence to support the investigation. ĐARKJEDI10 23:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Fut.Perf.

Also add the following:

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 On hold pending some opinions from some other CUs regarding this. –MuZemike 03:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment, MuZemike. — Coren  14:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

After conferring with a couple other CheckUsers, the following are  Confirmed as Jacurek:

 Likely as Jacurek:

Yardslikevalid is  Inconclusive based on technical evidence. I already blocked and tagged the confirmed socks. –MuZemike 17:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked the "likely" one as well, same style of edits. Jacurek blocked indef; I'll now go fill out the AE paperwork, but this is ridiculous. T. Canens (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Categories:
Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Jacurek Add topic