Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fangusu

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

Fangusu (5th)

 * Moved to Sockpuppet investigations/Fangusu --Icarus (Hi!) 04:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Fangusu (4th)



 * Code letter: F


 * Supporting evidence: Looking for another Fangusu sleeper scan. Just blocked another obvious one, JustaLottaAnimalsFan‎. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅. No sleepers found. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Grazie. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

These two appear to be the beginning of a new outbreak. The first is blocked, the second is not. Technical evidence of the second? Any more sleepers yet? —Wknight94 (talk) 04:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Both ✅. Also found . Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 04:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * All blocked & tagged. Tiptoety  talk 04:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Fangusu (3rd)



 * Code letter: F


 * Supporting evidence: A few deleted and undone Fangusu edits have been redone by ThunderCatsFan. Since someone objected to the range block, it was undone so I guess we need to do sleeper checks from time to time.  (I'm curious if the range block really caused any problems...) —Wknight94 (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅. – Luna Santin  (talk) 04:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Adding a new user:




 * Undoing edits by Wknight94 and stating support for User:ThunderCatsFan. (Already blocked indef, but it might indicate another flurry of socks.) Tony Fox (arf!) 03:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, previous sleeper scans below have uncovered quite a few. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅, same range; no obvious sleepers here, but will check back when I have some time. – Luna Santin  (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Tagged. Tiptoety  talk 20:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Fangusu (2nd)



 * Code letter: F

Let's hope the rangeblock holds him down for the next few motnhs. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Supporting evidence: Fangusu's range block expired for a few days and he took the opportunity to create a sleeper or two. Another sweep is in order.  Thanks.  —Wknight94 (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ the following as :

Blocked & Tagged. Tiptoety talk 04:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Fangusu



 * Code letter: F


 * Supporting evidence: Fangusu doing his typical edits. I've already permablocked these accounts and soft-blocked the underlying range for a couple weeks, but he's moved to logged-in accounts and apparently snuck in a few before the block.  I'm looking for any more sleepers.  (Is this supposed to go in the IP section below?  Even though we already know the IP?)  —Wknight94 (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Technical and behavioral evidence indicates that it is likely that the following accounts are related to User:Fangusu:
 * Technical and behavioral evidence indicates that it is possible that the following accounts are related to User:Fangusu:
 * Technical and behavioral evidence indicates that it is possible that the following accounts are related to User:Fangusu:
 * Technical and behavioral evidence indicates that it is possible that the following accounts are related to User:Fangusu:
 * Technical and behavioral evidence indicates that it is possible that the following accounts are related to User:Fangusu:
 * Technical and behavioral evidence indicates that it is possible that the following accounts are related to User:Fangusu:
 * Technical and behavioral evidence indicates that it is possible that the following accounts are related to User:Fangusu:
 * Technical and behavioral evidence indicates that it is possible that the following accounts are related to User:Fangusu:
 * Technical and behavioral evidence indicates that it is possible that the following accounts are related to User:Fangusu:
 * Technical and behavioral evidence indicates that it is possible that the following accounts are related to User:Fangusu:
 * Technical and behavioral evidence indicates that it is possible that the following accounts are related to User:Fangusu:
 * Technical and behavioral evidence indicates that it is possible that the following accounts are related to User:Fangusu:
 * Technical and behavioral evidence indicates that it is possible that the following accounts are related to User:Fangusu:
 * Technical and behavioral evidence indicates that it is possible that the following accounts are related to User:Fangusu:
 * Technical and behavioral evidence indicates that it is possible that the following accounts are related to User:Fangusu:

-- Avi (talk) 06:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've blocked and tagged all in the likely list and will keep an eye on the possible list. Thanks!  —Wknight94 (talk) 13:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

✅ FormidableFour is a sock too, I checked with Avi. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 14:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I've been involved in cleaning up after this vandal and keeping an eye out for sockpuppets for some time now. I recognize DaisyBunny, Jkljkljkljkl, Kuriputo, and Noogy as sockpuppets I was familiar with based on the user's modus operandi. What is the case against the other usernames listed here? Only a couple of them have any edits, Nwschk with one that does not appear to be part of Fangusu's pattern and ReggaeRaccoon with one to a common Fangusu target but not necessarily in line with Fangusu's pattern. --Icarus (Hi!) 22:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, this is checkuser. Checkusers can see the IP address of every edit, etc.  When they say "confirm", it means there is technical evidence that we aren't allowed to see but they can, and that evidence strongly links the user accounts together.  —Wknight94 (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I got it. I thought someone was requesting that the listed usernames be checked to see if it's the same user, but the "likely" and "possible" lists are instead the results of the checkuser. Am I correct? --Icarus (Hi!) 03:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is correct. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

''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.''