Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fronsdorf

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

Fronsdorf


Submitted by Gnevin (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Gnevin, an explanation for this would be helpful. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry. User noq has become very active as soon as Londo was banned, has voted in a discussion. Also their is this strange edit by Londo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnevin (talk • contribs)
 * I added MarkFD above. That account admits to being Fronsdorf, asked in a couple places how to get unblocked, and redirected his/her own user and talk page to Fronsdorf's, but then promptly became inactive.  Not sure what's going on but thought it might be useful here.  —Wknight94 (talk) 15:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This note was included when added Wasps FC: looks like another Londo06 sockpuppet, newly created account which immediately chimed into a discussion that Londo06 was involved in (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_union).  —Wknight94 (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I am none of these people. Londo 06  21:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ Londo06 = Wasps FC. ✅ Fronsdorf = MarkFD. Not quite sure why we're checking noq? – Luna Santin  (talk) 10:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like this guy just cannot grasp the fact that sockpuppetry is not ok. We can be sure he'll continue doing so in the future, even though he now knows he'll be caught, unless somehow it's made clear to him that this behaviour is not acceptable. Beats me how we can do that though.--Jeff79 (talk) 11:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not Londo, although I do know him. He asked me to do this. I don't even know why I did it, I think wikipedia is for losers. He came into my office and asked me to do him a favour. Personally I think anything that can be edited by anyone is flawed. I say ban him. Wasps FC (talk) 11:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Londo06 is blocked for one month and Wasps FC is blocked indefinitely. MarkFD was very confused and is inactive anyway so I've left that account unblocked.  —Wknight94 (talk) 12:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I just reverted some silliness from Noq. Maybe a check of that account is worthwhile after all...  —Wknight94 (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Question: Why only one month block? This user has been found guilty twice of sockpuppeteering in the space of less than one month after the last block for the same issue. He/she doesn't follow Wikiquette and is undermining the consensus process. Something else needs to be done? --Bob (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd consider it a last chance. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Londo has claimed to be Noq and requested infinite blocking  Gnevin (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice. But I am not Londo - which a checkuser should clear up noq (talk) 18:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * per Londo06's claim to own the "Noq" account. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Currently available technical evidence is inconclusive regarding any relationship between noq and User:Londo06. -- Avi (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there any information I can provide that can assist in making a conclusive ruling? noq (talk) 07:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

As User:Londo06 has been using multiple sockpuppets and has denied doing so for so very long, could a checkuser be performed on all accounts used in this recent discussion. Apologies to those who may not be, but I am sick of what this user has been doing and has done. I would just like this to be sorted out so that we can move on. Note that I have included myself in this pool. --Bob (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)




 * That's starting to sound uncomfortably like fishing... – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hang on a second. Grcampbell (Bob), you're saying that Cometstyles is socking? OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, as Luna Santin said, Bob included everyone in a discussion, including himself, to fish for anyone else that may be socking. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We do not know what other usernames Londo06 has been using. The list just keeps getting longer with every passing day. Londo06 was even preparing a sockpuppet investigation into my own activity. I want everything out into the open so that discussions at WP:RU may resume in good faith. I understand that this request will, in all liklihood be rejected as it is indeed a fishing expedition and WP:RFCU is not for this, but this user has more heads than medusa and Dashaanan combined.--Bob (talk) 02:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Then the approach is to ask if any further socks of Londo06 exist. It's not to list everyone in a given discussion and ask that they are all checked.  —Wknight94 (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Do any other socks of Londo06 exist that have not been unearthed yet? What is the procedure for doing this? --Bob (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure we can take Cometstyles off of the list above. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be appropriate to rename this checkuser case to "Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Londo06".   The Windler      talk   09:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Fronsdorf


Vote wasn't closed but was prevented from being closed. Please see Suspected sock puppets/MortonStalker.--Jeff79 (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * D|F:*
 * Supporting evidence:
 * Case renamed after alleged sockmaster. Example of vote edits: Fronsdorf, MortonStalker.  —Wknight94 (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

— Rlevse  •  Talk  • 01:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * relisting as I meant Fronsdorf and MortonStalker are inconclusive but I did find something I'm still working on. Leave in active section for now please. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 03:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Final results: is the master account.
 * on technical evidence that and / etal are the same, but it can not be ruled out. Suggest admins, RFCU clerks, and other interested parties look at behavior and edit patterns and times.
 * ✅ =  =  =  (lower case 's') =
 * blocked one week with firm warning, other confirmed socks indef'd.
 * his fate is left to admins, RFCU clerks, see above inconclusive note
 * — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 21:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Here are some stats that I found. Fronsdorf's normal edit time is 14:59:34 (UTC) while Londo06's normal edit time is 14:15:55 (UTC). More behavior evidences suggest that they're socking. Total edits to combined pages: Londo06: 6888, Fronsdorf: 1015. Almost one-third of edits combined by both users are editing towards same articles. OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Based on the similarity of their edits and edit sums, I think it is reasonable to conclude Fronsdorf = MortonStalker, even if the technical evidence does not show a direct link.  MBisanz  talk 01:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Thanks guys. Just wondering though, was there nothing on User:GarethHolteDavies or User:Come on the Mothers?--Jeff79 (talk) 10:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the first I've heard about these two users. How do you think they are related?  If Rlevse had found a connection between them and Londo06, he likely would have said so.  You might want to start another case about them, or relist this case under "outstanding requests" (or ask one of us to do it).  —Wknight94 (talk) 11:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, the only users I ever mentioned were Fronsdorf and MortonStalker at the original suspected sock puppetry case above. I imagine all the rest were found in connection with that poll I mentioned in the request (and perhaps others), and that's also where these two others are involved. Maybe nothing was found about these extra two, but they seem pretty suspicious to me (i.e. GarethHolteDavies magically reappearing today to continue work on similar articles after Londo06 was blocked).--Jeff79 (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I ran a poor man's checkuser (the one in toolserver, not the wikiscanner). All 3 are interested in Rugby & Football (soccer), participate in their respective WikiProjects, and identified themselves as living in UK per their individual userpages. Almost half of "Come on the Mothers"'s edits are towards the same page as "Londo06" and "GarethHolteDavies". Their normal editing time ranged from between 11am to 1pm (all UTC time). OhanaUnitedTalk page 12:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ =, blocked and tagged.
 * on technical evidence that = . Suggest admins and RFCU clerks look at GarethHolteDavies, Fronsdorf on edits, behavior, and see if WP:DUCK applies. I also blocked some sleeper accounts that may or may not be related to Londo06. —  Rlevse  •  Talk  • 23:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I went through GarethHolteDavies and Londo06's contributions. Their edits never once overlap. And the nature of GHD's editing pattern (short bursts of activity one day, long gaps between edits) suggests to me that they are indeed one person. This is simply guesswork though, but it seems the case. Also, per above, the subject areas are identical. How do you turn this on (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, so we narrowed down to GHD and Londo06. I ran a PMCU report it shows more than 60% of GHD's edits are in the same page as Londo06! I would say it is very very likely that they're the same person. <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 17:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What about Fronsdorf? — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 01:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Behavior evidence is also inconclusive whether they are same person or not. <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 03:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Kelly, Christopher created an account last night about 20 minutes after Londo06 posted a comment on his talk page. In less than an hour Kelly, Christopher had edited both Football and Rugby league articles, joined both projects, created an article which was speedy deleted and set up a user page with the usual pattern of infoboxes. The edit which originally caught my attention was this one which is also a common edit for Londo06 such as this typical revert of one of Tony1's overlink edits and brought up by GarethHolteDavies at the overlinking talk page. There is also this question posed at the Arabian Peninsula article by GarethHolteDavies. An article edited by Londo06, GarethHolteDavies and Fronsdorf  at various times to push similar pov. Might be shadows, but still... &bull; Florrie &bull; leave a note &bull; 05:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Appears to be strong behavioral evidence linking the two of them together. I would endorse a block.  MBisanz  talk 05:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ = . Pls handle as appropriate. —  Rlevse  •  Talk  • 20:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Indef'd Kelly and one month block on Gareth.  MBisanz  talk 00:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Playing devil's advocate, I'm worried that Fronsdorf was being stalked by Londo06 - the word "stalker" in two of the socks' names doesn't help. The edits and edit summaries are almost too similar.  Otherwise, based on behavior and coincidences, I'd say all of these accounts are one person, block them all, and lengthen Londo06's.  —Wknight94 (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've indef blocked Fronsdorf on the basis of the behavioral evidence (before you commented Wknight), but am open to review.  MBisanz  talk 00:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, understandable. Just log me as "uneasy".  :)  —Wknight94 (talk) 01:02, 19 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.''