Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Rugby 666

Rugby 666





 * Code letter: F

Rugby 666 was blocked for one months (then two months, now indefinitely) for abusive sockpuppeteering (see Requests for checkuser/Case/Ehinger222). The present socks are simply extensions of an enormous sockfarm dating right back to user:licinius/user:NSWelshman etc...

,, , , all tucked into some edit warring with , in particular over Marconi Stadium, reminiscent of edit wars started by.

- almost certainly. even calling a troll (a habit of other socks of  in edit summaries. even questioned the legitimacy of bans imposed by essjay.

- this is the big papa, this one's been going for ages and ages, spawning new puppets and puppeteer accounts. See the belowmentioned link to RFCU. past CU processes haven't been able to check him as activity was too old, but has been active recently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dibo (talk • contribs)
 * Please include a diff of the discussion that resulted in the ban or block. Thanks! Greeves (talk • contribs) 23:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There's continued activity here as can seen:


 * In the article on Footy blindly reverting an edit that actually tried to find a bit of wiggle room between two more extreme positions.


 * In the article on Robert Brasillach repeatedly inserting a bit of text that is neither especially relevant nor supported by any verifiable source


 * repeatedly removing a disambiguating term, in order to keep the word 'football' in reference to rugby league.


 * edit warring over the page Australian National Football Team


 * petty edits to a number of pages. Latest is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007_Australian_football_code_crowds&diff=116979406&oldid=116782761

This user has had over 12 months of warnings, currently evades bans by editing with IP's, always pushes the same POV rubbish. If Wikipedia is serious about stamping out this problem his/her ISP needs to be contacted, or at the very least, the IP range given a serious ban. He/she has been warned in the past, has been banned, how long is this going to be allowed to contine for? Personally I am sick of logging in twice a day, just to remove rubbish edits! I'm sure others feel the same.Tancred 09:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Some more comments


 * Both these IP's are in the same CIDR block. They are both controlled by Telstra - an Australian ISP.  Editors that use these IP's have been pushing a POV for over 12 months here.  These edits all take the same form.  The editor picks 1-2 words each week, edits for his POV and then spends a week or so reverting despite what other editors suggest.  How do I know they are the same person?  A number of things.  The constant refusal to sign any comments is one key.  User talk:Rugby_666 was finally banned.  That case can be looked at here:
 * ‎Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ehinger222
 * ‎Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-27 Alan Oakley
 * ‎Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ehinger222 (2nd)
 * ‎Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ehinger222
 * ‎Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Rugby 666

The Rubgy League POV pushing stopped for a short time but quickly started up again. Some examples: User 147.10.112.157 (A known Ehinger222 IP) made this edit  about Marconi Stadium. A week later the plans for a new stadium development were called off and the article updated. Then 5 new accounts were created, just to revert back to the now incorrect edit:

.

After this the user has given up with registering new usernames and just uses IP's. His/Her latest series of edits are nothing more than tweaking Wikipedia for POVness. ,,. not to mention the endless POV stuff here.

here, both revert the page back to edits made by Rugby666, one of the banned usernames.

Given this has been going on for for many months, something really needs to be done. I would call for at least raising this ongoing wikipedia attack with the ISP, and blocking the IP range. Tancred 12:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)



The blocks previously followed from the discussion quoted here and the previous RFCU cases archived below on this page.
 * Removed content copied from Requests for checkuser/Case/Ehinger222 -- probably better to link. You may want to check and make sure I didn't accidentally erase anything I shouldn't have, but please do try to keep any further comments brief. Thanks! – Luna Santin  (talk) 02:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * no, that looks fine. Dibo T 03:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No evidence of a community ban. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The ban is here (that's user:Rugby 666's ban). Plus the editor in question admited the bans here. Plus check out the bunch of RFCU cases below. I realise this is somewhat irregular to revive a case in this manner, but frankly I'm mystified as to why it ever got rejected. Dibo T 13:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * According to the tag on the userpage, there must be an Arbcom case somewhere, I couldn't find it though. User:Luna Santin is the one who put the tag, maybe he'll remember where it comes from? -- lucasbfr talk 13:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm... not sure which template I used, on that, honestly. =\ Whatlinkshere reveals discussions at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive65 and Administrators' noticeboard/Archive67. Neither of those clearly mentions a ban, however. I'm going to break neutrality and should recuse myself from further clerking as relates to this case, but given the prior checks, numerous blocks, repeated sockpuppetry, and assorted abuse warranting month-long rangeblocks, couldn't this be submitted under letter G? –  Luna Santin  (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

. Every one of those accounts is too old to check. Dmcdevit·t 07:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Rugby 666

 * 
 * IP range 60.225.*.*
 * 
 * IP range 60.225.*.*
 * 
 * IP range 60.225.*.*


 * Code letter: A (weakly), C, F

Firstly, please click the "view" button to the right in the box to see the history of this user. Essjay's comment in the request directly below is especially revealing of this user's habits.

I quote with the following from my user talk page:"A user has popped up on a couple of IP's very similar to a sock of Ehinger222/Rugby 666 (147.10.112.157 to be exact): 147.10.117.219 and 147.10.112.186. Making similar sorts of pro- [ Rugby League ] edits, similarly uncivil edit summaries... Is there an easy way to simply block this guy off? He just pops up again and again doing the same crap. Either comes from the 60.225.*.* or 147.10.*.* namespace each time I think, which both trace back to the same ISP (Telstra Broadband)."

The main account, Rugby 666, is indef blocked, as is his whole sockfarm. He pushes his POV regarding Rugby League, especially naming etc.

Also, Requests for checkuser/Case/Ehinger222 is also periphirally related to this - see that case page for links. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] (UTC) Note: I recuse from all clerk activites in relation to this case.
 * I'm putting this check on hold until Essjay gets back (hopefully tomorrow or the next day), for reasons I can explain to a checkuser if they request it. I notified Essjay on his talk page about this request. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 02:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

✅. I've hit 147.10.0.0/16 with a month block anon-only no account creation. Essjay  ( Talk )  11:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Rugby 666
 view edit history watch Filed: 16:46, December 20 2006 (UTC)




 * Code letter: F

Based upon the username, and the edits to John O'Neill (sport administrator) I strongly supect this is User:Rugby 666 once again getting around his/her 3 month ban.

Also I am creating a new case, as I am not sure if I edit the current Rugby666 page, if an Admin will see the edit - Thanks Tancred 16:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I archived the old-ish request (two or so days) so that the noinclude tags can do their stuff. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 22:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

✅. I'm coming close to an anon-only, no account creation rangeblock here. Essjay  ( Talk )  01:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * the block on is now indef. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 07:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tancred 11:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Rugby 666
 view edit history watch Filed: 15:17, December 17 2006 (UTC)




 * Code letter: F.

At the moment user User:Rugby_666 is band for 3 months for "sockpuppetry and personal attacks". I feel that User:AccAct is probably User:Rugby_666 avoiding the ban. My reason is that User:AccAct edit's are very similar to those of User:Rugby_666 and all the other sockpuppets. Tancred 15:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Moved the above from Requests for checkuser/Case/AccAct, changed heading appropriately; keeping related cases together. Luna Santin 19:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ✅. Dmcdevit·t 07:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Rugby 666





 * Code letter: F

Rugby 666 was blocked for one (now two) months for abusive sockpuppeteering about three days ago (see Requests for checkuser/Case/Ehinger222). The sudden spurt of rugby league edits since this block by this editor, as well as the relationship between Rugby 666 and the user on the user talk page of Dannys-777, make me suspicious. However, this would have been pure suspicion, but this edit sounded alarm bells, given what Rugby 666/Ehinger222 et al.'s disputes surround. My opinion is that it will be great if we can nip this one in the bud, if it's confirmed - if it is, that will be yet another violation of evading a block using a sockpuppet for this giant sockfarm. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 13:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

❌. Different sides of the world. Essjay  ( Talk )  00:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, cheers. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 00:46, 17 December 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.''