Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Citedcover

''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it .''

Citedcover 2



 * Code letter: GGG
 * Supporting evidence: I have sent the evidence to the CU mailing list and I know the account is already blocked, but its actually a sock of a banned editor known as User:Chris19910, and the two accounts above User:BountyHunter2008 and User:Vandalismterminator are the two recent blocked account of this sockmaster that can be used to link these accounts.-- Cometstyles 01:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * will merge with Requests for checkuser/Case/Chris19910 depending on the result. -- lucasbfr  talk 18:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

all already indef'd, Chris19910 sock.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 02:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

So then do we want to mark it unnecessary? Tiptoety talk 19:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Citedcover



 * Code letter: GGG

''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it. Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.''
 * Supporting evidence: This account has been blocked. It recently had an odd change of character, and looks like it may have been compromised.  The account is also threatening to engage in sock puppetry.  I think Checkuser could help in this situation, perhaps by blocking the underlying IP(s). Jehochman Talk 15:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Account does not look compromised from a technical perspective, as far as I can tell. Underlying IP blocked for 1 week. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, I will increase the account's block to indefinite. The recent posts were egregious and the editor should not be returning until they provide assurances that they will behave better. Jehochman Talk 17:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)