Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Instantnood

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

Instantnood


Code letter: F

See Suspected sock puppets/Instantnood (3rd). Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * - A l is o n  ❤ 05:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Instantnood





 * Code letter: B.

Link to ArbCom case: Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3

I believe Instantnood has returned in various guises recently. The increased activity is probably related to time off for Lunar New Year holiday. Obviously any CU data on the 'nood account has disappeared. These users have a heavy correlation to Instantnood's editing activities and I believe the named accounts will match to the IPs, each other, or possibly to other sleeper socks. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * - -  A l is o n  ❤ 10:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Kawapouch tagged and blocked indef, no action taken on Heimm Old. Keilana | Parlez ici 19:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Kawapouch tagged and blocked indef, no action taken on Heimm Old. Keilana | Parlez ici 19:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Instantnood





 * Code letter: B.

Link to ArbCom case: Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3

RFCU data to link Kowlooner directly to Instantnood is obviously stale, but the link has been made and Kowlooner blocked. He edited with the IP address as well. Instantnood is a serial sockpuppeteer, and a CU on the IP will likely turn up other socks as recently created accounts with few edits. Part of his sockpuppet pattern is to create several socks, and leave a few as sleepers to continue editing as they get uncovered. SchmuckyTheCat
 * This should have been listed in the IP Check section. But no, there is nothing on that IP of importance. --Deskana (talk) 02:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is completed. Clerks should archive, at their convenience. --Deskana (talk) 03:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Instantnood





 * Code letter: B.

Link to ArbCom case: Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3

Qaka and Iianq gave themselves up as socks of each other in the very first edit summary here:  I believe they are also socks of Instantnood.

Instantnood's IP evidence is probably getting stale by now. Qaka and Iianq have shown up to wikistalk myself and Huaiwei, as Instantnood did. They have the same editing patterns on the same articles as Instantnood, making the same edits as several of the below socks previously made. Their talk page grammar shows the same peculiarities as Instantnood. They are anal about the same extremely minor issues. They show advanced wiki-markup skills very early on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SchmuckyTheCat (talk • contribs)
 * They appear to be obvious socks (maybe not instantnood, but someone), which can be blocked on site by administrators. I don't think a checkuser would be necessary. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 00:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

✅. They're certainly the same user; whether they're Instantnood is beyond me. Probably these accounts too: --Mackensen (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Instantnood





 * Code letter: B.

Link to ArbCom case: Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3

The two user has a stunning similar edit pattern and that they never been online at the same time, and some of User:Privacy's edits falls on various User:Instantnood's bans. For example, User:Privacy was very active on both April 4th and 6th while for no apparent reason skipped April 5th, and of which on that day User:Instantnood was very active, and that while User:Instantnood was banned on March User:Privacy becomes very active. Also, they have very similar interest and both engaged in edit conflict with User:SchmuckyTheCat. What makes it even more suspicious is that their conflict existed in pages little known to many people, like Category:Hong Kong company stubs and Category:Chinese businesspeople, of which it is easily seen in the page's history that both User:Instantnood and User:Privacy has conflicted with User:SchmuckyTheCat. WinHunter (talk) 00:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Axtro: Showed up while Instantnood went missing and immediately made POV re-orgs against Huaiwei as the first edit. Then 'Nood picked up where Axtro left off when he returned. Axtro laid low for a month and returned while Instantnood was banned to revert Ksyrie (who 'nood was following before his ban). After having laid low but made some initial edits, engaged in classic sock behavior - moving articles. and classic 'Nood find-and-replace. This user follows me. And makes similar edits to Privacy, et al, in proposing redirects for speedy delete so they can perform POV moves. 

Passer-by: and notice right above this edit - within 24 hours 'Nood being banned, three of the users in this RFCU all voted on a pretty obscure stub-sorting discussion? And edit wars back to Instantnood versions of stubs while Instantnood is banned. And seems to care A LOT (enough to edit war) about using the 'o' spelling of Macau/Macao which is another Instantnood habit:

Michael G. Davis: Some info in previous RFCU (I'd forgotten it was there). He appears while Instantnood is banned. This latest time after being gone for two months, he showed up after 'Noods ban in March to vote as a block with Privacy and Passer-by on all the stub-sorting discussions. And to continue the reverts of Ksyrie as mentioned with Axtro,.

These users definitely have a relationship. I'm not sure RFCU is going to uncover it. SchmuckyTheCat 01:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ Instantnood == Privacy; Privacy == Axtro; Privacy == Passer-by. Michael G. Douglas is not IP related to the other three, but is enamored of Tor nodes. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Also:
 * Oh, by the way: next time you add a new case to an existing Case article, add it to the top, not the bottom! --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, by the way: next time you add a new case to an existing Case article, add it to the top, not the bottom! --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, by the way: next time you add a new case to an existing Case article, add it to the top, not the bottom! --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * oh yes, I meant to include Porkie Chopie! I thought of it after the other three but I thought coming back again and adding it with such a skimpy edit history would be pushing my luck and didn't want to be accused of phishing. Thanks. SchmuckyTheCat 23:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding Pointe, shows similar interests. Relisting. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅. Yeah, Pointe too. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 02:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Instantnood



 * Code letter: B.

Editing pattern is too close for comfort. There is no way this is a new user.
 * Instantnood lately only edits on Saturdays HK time for a long period, then goes mostly goes dormant for a week, this new account shows up exactly on that schedule. Instantnood made one single edit during the middle of this new user.
 * New account instantly new advanced template syntax as their very first edit, then went on to do other advanced syntax stuff (templates, etc).
 * New account targeted recent (within hours) articles edited by myself, Alanmak and Huaiwei , who Instantnood always checks contribs on.
 * New account made exactly the types of edits Instantnood is famous for, recreating mainland China categories, removing chinese language infoboxes, etc.
 * New account targeted articles Instantnood recently targeted
 * New account targeted category revisions that Instantnood has fixated on
 * New account went to 3 reverts, but never over, in bouts of revert warring on several articles.

thx: SchmuckyTheCat 09:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Michael edits exclusively from Tor, which means IP evidence means nothing. You'll have to present your evidence to WP:ANI and ask for an admin(s) to make a judgment call. Dmcdevit·t 09:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Instantnood


I blocked Instantnood for 7 days for violating his probation. I was advised of another account of User:Temporarily that states it is a sock of Instant for the purposes of voting in a CfD and therefore evading a block. I would like some confirmation if there is any evidence this is a sock of Insntantood, I don't see the statement on the user page reliable as this would be a very good way of making Instant look bad. --Wgfinley 06:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It's possible; they use the same Hong Kong ISP. However, I believe the IP addresses we see are the ISP's proxies, and other users who don't appear to be Instantnood also use them, so the results are not definitive. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 13:24, 12 February 2006 (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 below, in a new section.''