Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/KillAllSpammers

Can we get a quick WP:DUCK ruling that User:AnarchistAssassin is the same editor? Brand new person edit warring over same stuff on same article. DreamGuy (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The directions below do not work -- wouldn't need a checkuser for such an obvious case and that page is locked anyway so I can't add the notice. DreamGuy (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

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

KillAllSpammers

 * Code letter: G
 * Supporting evidence: KillAllSpammers and sockpuppets TeerGrub and IPs were blocked in May following edit war on eNom. SpamSurgeon is similar in name, actions, verbiage, content edited, failure to discuss, and establishment of throwaway accounts (new editor KenBayfield's first contribution 11 minutes after SpamSurgeon's suggestion that "someone other than myself or Thirdbeach" should edit the article). I realize there's been no edit-warring using the new accounts, but request a check because all behavior points to KillAllSpammers, who was blocked for edit-warring with sockpuppets. Please check IPs of all SpamSurgeon and KenBayfield edits and compare with KillAllSpammers known and suspected IPs listed in first and second checkuser.
 * Code letter: G
 * Supporting evidence: KillAllSpammers and sockpuppets TeerGrub and IPs were blocked in May following edit war on eNom. SpamSurgeon is similar in name, actions, verbiage, content edited, failure to discuss, and establishment of throwaway accounts (new editor KenBayfield's first contribution 11 minutes after SpamSurgeon's suggestion that "someone other than myself or Thirdbeach" should edit the article). I realize there's been no edit-warring using the new accounts, but request a check because all behavior points to KillAllSpammers, who was blocked for edit-warring with sockpuppets. Please check IPs of all SpamSurgeon and KenBayfield edits and compare with KillAllSpammers known and suspected IPs listed in first and second checkuser.
 * Code letter: G
 * Supporting evidence: KillAllSpammers and sockpuppets TeerGrub and IPs were blocked in May following edit war on eNom. SpamSurgeon is similar in name, actions, verbiage, content edited, failure to discuss, and establishment of throwaway accounts (new editor KenBayfield's first contribution 11 minutes after SpamSurgeon's suggestion that "someone other than myself or Thirdbeach" should edit the article). I realize there's been no edit-warring using the new accounts, but request a check because all behavior points to KillAllSpammers, who was blocked for edit-warring with sockpuppets. Please check IPs of all SpamSurgeon and KenBayfield edits and compare with KillAllSpammers known and suspected IPs listed in first and second checkuser.
 * Code letter: G
 * Supporting evidence: KillAllSpammers and sockpuppets TeerGrub and IPs were blocked in May following edit war on eNom. SpamSurgeon is similar in name, actions, verbiage, content edited, failure to discuss, and establishment of throwaway accounts (new editor KenBayfield's first contribution 11 minutes after SpamSurgeon's suggestion that "someone other than myself or Thirdbeach" should edit the article). I realize there's been no edit-warring using the new accounts, but request a check because all behavior points to KillAllSpammers, who was blocked for edit-warring with sockpuppets. Please check IPs of all SpamSurgeon and KenBayfield edits and compare with KillAllSpammers known and suspected IPs listed in first and second checkuser.

History of the article.

Thanks, Thirdbeach (talk) 05:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC) Revisions for clarity and accurate timing. Thirdbeach (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Living Person alert: This editor's newest identity, KenBayfield, is a living person. Ken Bayfield, who according to his Web site lives in Vancouver, BC, owns thirdbeach.ca -- my ID here at Wikipedia. My best guess is that SpamSurgeon Googled "thirdbeach", thinks he or she has identified me, and is trying to stick it to the man but has actually implicated an innocent third party. At minimum, if the IP of the KenBayfield post doesn't track back to Vancouver area I'd ask you to block the KenBayfield identity. Thirdbeach (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Adding IAmKenBayfield, apparently same editor. Please also note SpamSurgeon's blanking of this checkuser request and block for edit-warring on eNom. Thirdbeach (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Adding IPs that appear to be same editor. Thanks to C.Fred for semi-protecting article. Please consider blocking these IP ranges, broadly enough to cover IPs in second checkuser. Thanks, Thirdbeach (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Did the lookup: 4.* is part of a previously abused range that includes the entire 4.* range under one roof, but it appears the 69.* IP is part of a new range (but behavior suggests it's same editor). Would still appreciate maximum protection that's consistent with Wikipedia policies. Thirdbeach (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Adding IAmReallyKenBayfield, again apparently same editor. All permutations of Ken Bayfield impersonation have been blocked and eNom has been semi-protected, thanks to several alert admins. SpamSurgeon is still at issue. Thirdbeach (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ =  =  =   =   =  = . Clerks pls block and tag as appropriate.  — Rlevse •  Talk  • 21:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Plus vandalism yesterday on my talk page by 69.72.10.126, expeditiously blocked by Unpopular Opinion (HG). Any chance that IP could be wrapped into the block range? Thanks! Thirdbeach (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ = to all the others. Did a small range block too. — Rlevse •  Talk  • 23:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

New activity: Apologies in advance if this isn't quite the correct way to add. Acroterion re-semi-protected article for 14 days so hopefully this will be all for a while. Thanks. Thirdbeach (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

✅ all three IPs same guy as before but ranges are too big to block.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 22:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

KillAllSpammers (2nd)
Original block was against KillAllSpammers, TeerGrub, and 67.150.254.25 for sockpuppetry in the context of edit war. Clerk asked if sockpuppeting IPs should be blocked but I thought it reasonable to wait to see if blocked editor would get the message and stop the disruptive edits. Apparently not, so please check the list of IPs that fit this editor's pattern. They include: History of the article. Thirdbeach (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Code letter: A, B, C, F
 * Supporting evidence: KillAllSpammers and sockpuppets were blocked in May following edit war on eNom. SpamSurgeon is similar in name, actions, and modus operandi (disruptive edits on same content as KillAllSpammers, with no comments). The listed IPs also exhibit the same behaviors and their contribs are singularly focused on eNom and closely related article List of domain name registrars. If you're comfortable doing so, please block not only individual IPs but the following ranges. Added note: ranges I specified are in left-hand column and are actual ranges this editor has used. IPs in right column were added by bot and are less relevant.
 * Table removed. Not sure why it offended....  —Wknight94 (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 4.224-226.*.*
 * 67.150.252-254.*
 * 72.251.75-79.*
 * 208.100.249.*
 * 216.190.249.*
 * Code letter: A, B, C, F
 * Supporting evidence: KillAllSpammers and sockpuppets were blocked in May following edit war on eNom. SpamSurgeon is similar in name, actions, and modus operandi (disruptive edits on same content as KillAllSpammers, with no comments). The listed IPs also exhibit the same behaviors and their contribs are singularly focused on eNom and closely related article List of domain name registrars. If you're comfortable doing so, please block not only individual IPs but the following ranges. Added note: ranges I specified are in left-hand column and are actual ranges this editor has used. IPs in right column were added by bot and are less relevant.
 * Table removed. Not sure why it offended....  —Wknight94 (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 4.224-226.*.*
 * 67.150.252-254.*
 * 72.251.75-79.*
 * 208.100.249.*
 * 216.190.249.*
 * Code letter: A, B, C, F
 * Supporting evidence: KillAllSpammers and sockpuppets were blocked in May following edit war on eNom. SpamSurgeon is similar in name, actions, and modus operandi (disruptive edits on same content as KillAllSpammers, with no comments). The listed IPs also exhibit the same behaviors and their contribs are singularly focused on eNom and closely related article List of domain name registrars. If you're comfortable doing so, please block not only individual IPs but the following ranges. Added note: ranges I specified are in left-hand column and are actual ranges this editor has used. IPs in right column were added by bot and are less relevant.
 * Table removed. Not sure why it offended....  —Wknight94 (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 4.224-226.*.*
 * 67.150.252-254.*
 * 72.251.75-79.*
 * 208.100.249.*
 * 216.190.249.*
 * Supporting evidence: KillAllSpammers and sockpuppets were blocked in May following edit war on eNom. SpamSurgeon is similar in name, actions, and modus operandi (disruptive edits on same content as KillAllSpammers, with no comments). The listed IPs also exhibit the same behaviors and their contribs are singularly focused on eNom and closely related article List of domain name registrars. If you're comfortable doing so, please block not only individual IPs but the following ranges. Added note: ranges I specified are in left-hand column and are actual ranges this editor has used. IPs in right column were added by bot and are less relevant.
 * Table removed. Not sure why it offended....  —Wknight94 (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 4.224-226.*.*
 * 67.150.252-254.*
 * 72.251.75-79.*
 * 208.100.249.*
 * 216.190.249.*
 * Apologies if I was unclear or implied that I'd taken offense, Wknight94 -- the IPs in the right column didn't appear to match those used by the mischief-maker and listed in left (unless I was misinterpreting the syntax in right-hand column). When the solution is applied, I just wanted to make sure it's applied to the IP ranges that are actually related to the problem. Thanks, Thirdbeach (talk) 01:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

❌ on technical evidence. Many of these IP edits are stale too. Admins should handle recent activity based on behavior. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 02:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into it, Rlevse. Will get back to you if activity becomes more actionable. Thirdbeach (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

KillAllSpammers



 * Code letter: E


 * Supporting evidence: This user and this IP Address are involved in an edit war at eNom. History of the article. GreenJoe 03:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ that KillAllSpammers is also editing that article.  that both 67.150.254.25 and 67.150.252.180 are the same person; he has not used those exact IP addresses but they are in his range.
 * The same editor is also who was involved in an edit war on the same article on March 17 by editing as TeerGrub and while logged out. Thatcher 11:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Both the master and the one registered sock puppet are blocked and tagged;
 * No action taken on the IP addresses; would it be beneficial to block them and/or the range?
 * Anthøny 23:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Anthøny 23:13, 31 May 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.''