Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Publicgirluk and others

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

Publicgirluk and others

 * 1)  135 edits, infrequent contributor, asked for pics
 * 2)  blocked as a page move vandal per checkuser although I can't find the check, posted once to publicgirluk's talk
 * 3)  video game fan with around 100 edits, one comment to publicgirluk
 * 4)  new editor, asked for pics
 * 5)  new editor, asked for pics
 * 6)  new editor, asked for pics
 * 7)  new editor, asked for pics
 * 8)  new editor, asked for pics
 * 9)  infrequent editor, asked for pics
 * 10)  Exetel (Australia)
 * 11)  Alfanet (Norway)
 * 12)  Cox cable (Virginia Beach)
 * 13)  Research in Motion (Blackberry)
 * 14)  AOL
 * 15)  Leeds England, ntl.com (cable)
 * 16)  PacBell California)
 * 17)  British Telecom
 * 18)  Alltel (North Carolina)
 * 19)  AOL
 * 20)  Sweden
 * 1)  AOL
 * 2)  Sweden

Per my discussion last night with Jimbo Wales, and this diff:. I would like to invite Jimbo to provide further info here. &mdash; Werdna talk criticism 07:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like a little more explanation as to what's going on. Are all of these accounts under sanction? Some of them? Mackensen (talk) 22:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As I explained to Rebecca and DavidGerard last night, the edits of ten of the IPs and ten of the usernames are very similar. See   . I believe publicgirluk has been blocked indefinitely, and some administrators believe that Courtney Akins should be (and may be the same person). &mdash; Werdna talk criticism 01:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm tabling this request for now; the matter isn't settled enough to my liking (I believe publicgirluk was recently unblocked, for one). M62Manchester is blocked indef and we already know all about his IP (one of the few I recognize on sight). Mackensen (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What we have here are publicgirluk and Courtenay Akins who have posted sexually explicit pictures of themselves, and a bunch of new accounts and IPs from all over the world posting to publicgirluk's talk page with their e-mail addresses asking for her to contact them. Other than a check on Courtney and publicgirl, I'm not sure what Jimbo is getting at. Perhaps he thinks these IP addresses and brand new users are socks of regular editors. If so, he seems to think they should be sanctioned for responding to publicgirl's trolling. It would definitely help to have a better explanation of what you hope to accomplish with this request. Thatcher131 (talk) 02:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Given the random locations of the IPs, I don't see the need for a check against them. Perhaps some of the users can be checked to see if they are just trolling accounts of her, though I am not sure that is necessary. There are a lot of different trolls (often from Encyclopedia Dramatica) who would love to cry and whine and make an issue of this kind of stuff, so I doubt that they are the same person anyway. Indeed, Jimbo should have been more clear on this.  Voice -of- All  19:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother checking every single IP address listed. I would only check the following users: User:publicgirluk, user:Courtney Akins, User:Nessuno834, User: TheM62Manchester, User:Parjay, User:Flip23Carnival, User:At2k6, User:Corner Soul, User:Roboticrobotics, User:M.underwater and User:Eneville. These ones are the only ones worth checking, because theres nothing you can do to a bunch of random IP addresses, unless they are consistant. — The Future  05:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * But what would you do with the information? Thatcher131 (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

for now. I'm not convinced that there's an active request. If specific requests are made I'll handle those on a case by case basis. Mackensen (talk) 19:15, 4 September 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 above, in a new section.''