Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jacurek

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

Jacurek



 * Code letter: E


 * Supporting evidence:It is highly probable that User:Jacurek is revert warring and evading his 4 month block for socking, block evasion and disruption as IP 154.20.146.225 and IP 70.79.12.228 at History of Jews in Poland. Besides the same pattern of editing, most convincing evidence that IP 154.20.146.225 and Jacurek is the same editor is here: Jacurek forgets to sign his post at talk page, IP 154.20.146.225 comes to sign it minutes later , and vice versa edit by IP 154.20.146.225 signed minutes later by Jacurek . IP 70.79.12.228 displays the same pattern of editing and is coming from the same area as IP 154.20.146.225. Editor Jacurek was blocked for socking and block evasion before (see User:Cvc42) and IP 70.79.12.228 continues reverting the same articles with similar edit summaries as sock Cvc42 did: please compare  and . --- M0RD00R (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The first reason not to file a checkuser request (at the top of WP:RFCU says "Obvious, disruptive sock puppet" -- this is an excellent example of that. CheckUser is not needed when the editing is as obvious as this.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it is rather obvious case. But there do we go from here then. Should I file it at SSP board?M0RD00R (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * . Follow up. This user restored IP 154.20.146.225 edits, with accusation of stalking in edit summary directed at me . Ambor's scope of edits falls in sock's Cvc42 editing history scope Please compare sock's Cvc42 edit, Ambor's edit . M0RD00R (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * -- lucasbfr  talk 21:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Now that socking is confirmed, shouldn't anything be done about block evasion by sockpuppeteer? And how about IPs? M0RD00R (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ that Ambor is Jacurek. Blocked and tagged.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Something already done: Sam Korn indefblock and tag puppeteer (=Ambor). Sam, please block IP's for suitable length of time, or inform Bishzilla, right here, how long anons be blocked, she do it.    bishzilla     ROA R R! !    22:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC).
 * Minor correction: technically speaking Ambor is not a puppetter, it's a simple sock. Jacurek is a puppetmaster. That's my point. M0RD00R (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, yes. As neutral admin, I will consider indef block of Jacurek.   bishzilla     ROA R R! !    22:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC).
 * I have reset the block on Jacurek to another 4 months. I have blocked 154.20.146.225 for three months as it is clearly a static-ish IP. I believe 70.79.12.228 is probably dynamic, so there is no particular point in blocking it at the moment. That do, Bish? Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Result consideration: Sam Korn already block Jacurek for 4 months, per . 'Zilla not change duration little Sam's block.   bishzilla     ROA R R! !    22:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC).


 * another IP from Vancouver, BC ranting about persecution of Jacurek . It seems this guy just does not get what block means. M0RD00R (talk) 08:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I don't need to comment about the identification of the user, but I can tell you that a rangeblock is impossible. Each IP is just going to have to be blocked when it comes up.  You don't really have to reopen the RFCU -- a post to ANI or to my talk page would be fine.  Oh, and the IP is blocked for 48 hours. Sam Korn (smoddy) 09:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Will do just that in future. M0RD00R (talk) 10:16, 12 July 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.''