Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Robdurbar

For continued checkuser discussion of this case, see Community sanction noticeboard/Archive8.

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

Robdurbar (third request)


He deleted the main page. What is there more to say? This is like wonderfool and robdurbar's actions on wiktionary and here. Requests for checkuser/Case/Robdurbar ~Crazytales 01:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Code letter: G
 * Code letter: G
 * Code letter: G
 * Code letter: G
 * I was just about to make the same request. Notice how they both went on an extended wikibreak at the beginning of March 2007. (Moved from Requests for checkuser/Case/AndyZ). --  tariq abjotu  02:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * suspicion on IRC that si the same person - adding here. ~Crazytales 03:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

❌, already checked; please see my statement on ANI. Dmcdevit·t 04:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Robdurbar 2

 * (Former username for Thewayforward)
 * (A known unblocked sock of Wonderfool/Thewayforward. Unblocked after community ban was lifted)
 * (Current sockmaster account, blocked due to a community ban that has been lifted)
 * (I found this IP blocked for one week in Wiktionary's block log as Wonderfool here)
 * (I found this IP blocked for one week in Wiktionary's block log as Wonderfool here)


 * Code letter: C G (This is cross-wiki pattern vandalism)

Evidence
 * Dangherous's Wiktionary log
 * Wonderfool's Wiktionary log
 * Robdurbar's Wikipedia log
 * Wiktionary's block log, showing that Wonderfool is still active there despite being banned


 * Summary of the events that lead me to request CheckUser:
 * On September 16, 2005, Wonderfool, a Wiktionary administrator, deleted its main page, several other important pages, and made a series of nonsense moves. He was desysopped and banned. However, his ban was removed.
 * On August 6, 2006, Dangherous, an unknown sockpuppet of Wonderfool who had become an administrator on Wiktionary, deleted its main page again, blocked all other administrators, and unblocked many inappropriate accounts like one of Primetime's sockpuppets, Willy on Wheels itself, and several accounts whose purposes were to attack User:Vildricianus, a Wiktionary administrator who also has an account here. One of his unblock summaries on one of the inappropriate unblocks hints that Wonderfool might be Willy on Wheels himself, though it is probably a joke during the second Wiktionary rampage. He got community banned again. The community ban is still in place.
 * Wonderfool has an account here and was banned by the ArbCom at one time for making hoax articles. The ban was rescinded, however. He had his username changed to User:Thewayforward. User:Thewayforward is still blocked due to that community ban here, but User:Dangherous, a known sockpuppet of his, was unblocked as a result of the community ban being lifted. After November 17, 2006, Dangherous never made another edit.
 * On April 19, 2007, User:Robdurbar went on his rampage. He blocked several editors he had disputes with and several bureaucrats, deleted the main page, and deleted several important pages like Cheese and History. He was desysopped and blocked, but not banned yet. I will propose a community ban based on the results of this CheckUser. Jesse Viviano 22:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Robdurbar's rampage reminds me of similar rampages by Wonderfool. I know that the other accounts listed have no current activity to check, but I am willing to bet that someone has kept some old CheckUser logs from either Wiktionary or Wikipedia on these vandal accounts. If someone confims the sockpuppetry with some old logs from either project, it will strenghten the evidence and the scope for a community ban I am considering.

The evidence on Dangherous's log starts at 6 August 2006.

The evidence on Wonderfool's log starts at 16 September 2005.

Jesse Viviano 14:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Wiktionary's block log and a deleted version of his userpage for more evidence based on location of the vandal. Jesse Viviano 14:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You only gave block logs (they are block logs showing every block the blocking administrator ever made), not diffs. This is not compliant with Code letter C. If this problem is not resolved in 3-7 days this case will be delisted. Fun  pika  20:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I gave combined logs of the actions of the vandal administrator (which include blocks, deletions, and unblocks; not just block logs) because administrator actions like blocks, unblocks, and deletions by the vandalizing administrator do not generate diffs. They only generate log entries. The logs I supplied were of actions the vandal administrator took, not the logs that other administrators generated when they tried to deal with this threat. You should have noticed that the User field was filled, not the Title field. This generates the log of the actions the vandal administrator took. If the title field was filled and the User field was blank, I would get the logs of actions others took toward the turncoat, not the actions the turncoat took himself. Therefore, to address this concern, I am changing the code letter to G. Jesse Viviano 21:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The request is now compliant. Fun  pika  00:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Didn't we already run a checkuser that found nothing suspicious? Is it so unreasonable to think that two different people in the world would abuse the wiki in the same general manner? Grand master  ka  01:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The aim of the first CheckUser was to determine if Robdurbar's account was possibly hijacked and to log the IP in case Robdurbar returns like Wonderfool did with Dangherous on Wiktionary. This CheckUser has an entirely different aim: to correlate CheckUser from here with CheckUser data from Wiktionary to see if Robdurbar is a Wonderfool sockpuppet. I will propose a community ban on Robdurbar (he technically never got banned yet) if the CheckUser fails to turn up any connection, and if it succeeds, I will propose a community ban on Dangherous/Wonderfool/Thewayforward. Jesse Viviano 20:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. I still think it's unlikely, but why not give it a try. Grand  master  ka  21:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

✅, and I found another sockpuppet. Dmcdevit·t 07:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently created only 4 days after Robdurbar's deletion of the main page. -- ChrisO 07:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That is the most bizarre thing ever. Community ban discussion started... Sorry if you wanted to start the fun. I also blocked User:User 56. Grand master  ka  08:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There is apparently no user called Wonderfool; presumably the account was renamed. That one, then, was impossible to block. I've un- and re-blocked User:Robdurbar linking to this case. (Note that it instantly triggered an autoblock; I don't know yet if it's the user in question or collateral damage). --kingboyk 16:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As I stated before, the account named Wonderfool was renamed Thewayforward. Jesse Viviano 17:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Robdurbar



 * Code letter: G

User:Robdurbar's (admin bit enabled) account was either compromised, or he went batshit insane, leading to vandalism of the main page, and the (since reverted) blocking of several users, including Jimbo. A steward finally intervened, stopping the madness. It'd be nice to know whether the account was compromised or some form of (hopefully temporary) insanity struck what appears to have been a previously good user. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 10:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Some links to his behavior is here. -- Kz Talk • Contribs 11:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My first impression is that Rob just wanted to leave with a bang and burn all bridges so he won't be tempted to return. It was all cleaned up in a matter of minutes, and the account is blocked and desysopped. Nothing more to see here I think. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing obvious to suggest that the account was compromised. Mackensen (talk) 11:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There are suggestions at the various threads, such as the comment here, that the Robdurbar account's blocking of established users he has interacted with is evidence that the same person is behind the good and bad actions. Though that is more "edit patterns" than CheckUser evidence, the absence of a CheckUser smoking gun seems to strengthen the case for the block being left in place and an indefinite ban noted somewhere. Carcharoth 11:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * archiving as completed by Mackensen -- lucasbfr talk 12:24, 19 April 2007 (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.''