Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Serenesoulnyc

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

Serenesoulnyc



 * Code letter: F
 * Supporting evidence:
 * Code letter: F
 * Supporting evidence:
 * Supporting evidence:

Updating with latest sock attack. The account is an obvious sock because it's using one of the IP addresses (listed above) from which the puppetmaster edited. The IP itself was blocked in June. He's also using his user and talk pages to attack me and other editors as he did in the past. I realize the account can simply be blocked, but I am filing the request primarily to check on any sleeper accounts that he might be using. I listed a suspected one above. His primary IP number in the past was in the 67.87.48.000 range. — Zerida 04:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)




 * - A l is o n  ❤ 06:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * all blocked. -- lucasbfr  talk 08:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Serenesoulnyc





 * Code letter: F

Request another follow-up. User:Serenesoulnyc was banned in May, came back through various sockpuppets in late June, and started editing just two weeks after the last activity by the banned socks. In the list above, the first IP address is User:Skatewalk's by his own admission. That IP is of the exact same range, location and host as the other two I listed above, the second being used when Serenesoulnyc came back after being banned, and the third being the main IP address from which Serenesoulnyc edited. A CheckUser was filed on Skatewalk here, but not in connection with Serenesoulnyc.

Both and  focused on articles in the same subject area and have a very similar editing pattern. I recently became suspicious when Skatewalk started acting disruptively on articles I frequently edit, culminating with a massive assault on my character in a report I posted on AN/I. I had had very little interaction with Skatewalk prior to this, so was quite surprised by his aggressiveness toward me in particular. He also mentioned the article Copt in the AN/I report, which he'd never edited as Skatewalk. However, it was vandalized through various sockpuppets of Serenesoulnyc, for which it is still semi-protected. — Zerida 18:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I just reverted disruption by Skatewalk where he deletes the evidence I provided and includes other user accounts to the list I filed. This is the original report in case he reverts again. — Zerida 06:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: User account indefinitely blocked due to preponderance of evidence. An IP block might be warranted and also check to see if he's used any other sock accounts. — Zerida 20:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * --Deskana (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Serenesoulnyc



 * Code letter: F

Request follow-up and blocking of IP and any other socks by an admin seeing this. These socks also belonged to the same user and have already been blocked. — Zerida 21:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

 Voice -of- All  23:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Serenesoulnyc





 * Code letter: E

Please see vandalism report I filed. User had been given a 4th-level warning but immediately reverted with his main account after that, then created a new account to revert again. Seems hard to prove vandalism with all these accounts, but I'd like to address the blatant abuse of policy after being warned about multiple account creation to bypass 3RR. — Zerida 18:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A code letter of E requires diffs to illustrate the 3RR violations.  Cbrown1023   talk   18:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Last 4 within a 24h-period:, , , . — Zerida 18:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅. Also:
 * -jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 01:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * -jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 01:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Is it too late to check on ? Same exact edits, inflammatory edit summaries. Also, I know that CheckUser clerks don't take further action, but could you advise on how to proceed next? — Zerida 02:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Putting back to outstanding requests so additional Checkuser may be done per user request. Fun  pika  11:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅. Mackensen (talk) 14:00, 20 May 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.''