Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Obedium

Obedium


edited to add:
 * 10:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 10:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 10:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the History from 08:59, 31 December 2007 by Krappe (this diff), to the revision dated at 04:57, 29 December 2007 by Jeff dowter (this diff, last 50 edits at GW, upon initiation of this checkuser report):
 * all registered accounts, AFAIK
 * Code letter: C
 * Supporting evidence:

Krappe Gibbs Free Energy Toliet to tap Baby Eisenstein Me called tree Little green apples Zoster Harry Duke Flavor Saver Garafolo Kernals of korn Mirkin man Jeff dowter

Copied from here: "The Global warming page is under a sock attack, and has been for a while (see history). They all appear to have been created at around the same time frame, and the accounts were obviously created to get around a semi-p solution.  I've noticed that most of them have been blocked as "generic" sock accounts, but at least one has been blocked as a sock account of .  They should all have tags to a specific blocked/banned user, but it appears that some of them don't.  Also, is there any more that can be done (other than revert/block, ignore)?  I assume that the underlying IP is also blocked in situations like his, but is that the case here?  It doesn't appear that way.  As an uninvolved admin (and sorry for involving you) any advice you might have would be appreciated.  R. Baley (talk) 09:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)"  end copy R. Baley (talk) 10:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC) See also completed checkuser case Scibaby (link) R. Baley (talk) 10:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * - this is not as simple as it appears, unfortunately








 * ✅ - as being each other - likely User:Scibaby, using throwaway IP addresses within the same small group of /16 ranges, all owned by the same ISP and all from the same computer. They create an account, make one or two reversions, and change their IP - A l is o n  ❤ 14:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, just to be clear, that's all of them with the exception of and the possible exception of  right?  R. Baley (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup! BTW - if this goes to ridiculous levels, we could possibly try a very short rangeblock or two with ACB enabled. That might work - A l is o n  ❤ 19:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Additional possible sock(s):
 * added by R. Baley (talk) on 17:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC).
 * ✅ - A l is o n  ❤ 19:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * and added by Vsmith (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Vsmith (talk) 21:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC) - blocked by me William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * - blocked by me William M. Connolley (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * and some other old blocked ones... --BozMo talk 22:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ - all of the above - A l is o n  ❤ 08:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

A few more:
 * added by Brusegadi (talk) 08:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * added by Brusegadi (talk) 08:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * added by Brusegadi (talk) 08:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * added by Brusegadi (talk) 08:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * - there's nothing more to be achieved through checkuser at this point
 * - A l is o n  ❤ 20:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I caught *a lot* of these socks today. Raul654 (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)