Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tom Sayle



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

Tom Sayle 5



 * Code letter: G
 * Code letter: G
 * Code letter: G
 * Code letter: G
 * Code letter: G
 * Code letter: G
 * Code letter: G
 * Code letter: G
 * Code letter: G
 * Code letter: G
 * Code letter: G
 * Code letter: G
 * Code letter: G
 * Code letter: G
 * Code letter: G


 * Supporting evidence

This is a bit of a different request. Andy Bjornovich aka Tom Sayle aka 55 other names has requested unblock. He has been denied, twice, but another admin (Sandstein) asked him to provide a list of all his other accounts as a first step towards possibly being unblocked. They're listed above, but they're all IPs; I find it unlikely that there are no named accounts we don't know about yet.

Coren, as the original blocking admin, has also denied the request, asking Andy/Tom to work through the 2nd chance process. Assuming in good faith that Andy is able to work within those constraints to post an article to his talk page (though initial edits are not promising, he has put up a proposed dab page), I'd like to see him have the chance to be unblocked--if he has been honest about disclosing all other socks.

A (very) quick chat with a CU told me that this is a reasonable request to make, so I'm asking on the basis of 'clearing out the sockdrawer', given the dozen new IPs that have been provided. // roux   16:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Update: adding per this diff. // roux   17:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A quick note that this may be moot; the editor in question has continued to attempt gaming the 2nd chance process by submitting sub stub BLPs. I've redirected their talk and protected given that there is no desire to actually work on the encyclopedia, but a great deal of wasted admin energy wasted.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hah, you beat me here! :P I think it's still worth asking CU to clean out anything remaining in the sockdrawer. Given your prot of his talkpage, I have the feeling weel be seeing either more anons or more named in 3..2..1... // roux   19:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: this last one. Note to other admins, the editor may be trying to get back into enwiki through SUL from other wikis (including commons). Please contact Lar or me if necessary. -- Avi (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Adding ; same range as Tom Sayle; behaviourally similar (adding self to category 'looking for admin help' without using adminhelp template); knows who Wafulz (original blocking admin) is and his email adx. // roux   editor review 20:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note from ACC Recently (within the last month) we have received multiple requests through ACC for accounts from one of the listed IPs as well as others under Tom Sayle rangeblocks (omitted for privacy), so the user may be trying to circumvent the system using ACC as well as SUL. Contact me if necessary. -- Terrillja talk  07:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Tom Sayle 4

 * (already blocked, included for comparison)
 * (already blocked, included for comparison)


 * Code letter: F


 * Supporting evidence: as per usual; correcting spelling of other users on talk pages/editing or refactoring comments ,,
 * idiosyncratic editing of policy pages (adding link to policy edited 4 times by confirmed socks), editing page last edited by another confirmed sock of his
 * seems to be doing the usual outing of self ,
 * idiosyncratic 'tidying' of various user pages ,
 * (in fact, may want to check userpages edited, as this puppeteer has a history of talking to self via other socks)

[ roux  » x ] 18:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * creation of redirects, standard behaviour for this sock

✅

Once again, a small range and a big range. The small range is for now. -- Avi (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * blocked and tagged already. -- lucasbfr  talk 22:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Tom Sayle 3

 * (Already blocked by Lar)


 * Code letter: F


 * Supporting evidence: as per usual; idiosyncratic enforcement of WP rules; creation of user subpages (e.g /Chess and User_talk/chess); editing of policies; etc. Already blocked, but I filed this so the rest of the current sockfarm can be rooted out. Can we do something more permanent? [ roux  ] [ x ] 19:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ Technical and behavioral evidence indicates that the following account is a sockpuppet of Tom Sayle:
 * As for the farm, this is a highly dynamic system. Last time I checked >65K IPs, this time over 100K. The last sweep caught almost all of them. There is a small range that is different from the standard, and that is being hardblocked, but to hardblock >110K IPs because of this puppeteer is a bit much. So the small range is and the large one will require vigilance, I'm afraid. -- Avi (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked & Tagged. Tiptoety  talk 20:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked & Tagged. Tiptoety  talk 20:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Tom Sayle 2

 * (incl as puppeteer)
 * (openly admitted)
 * (openly admitted)
 * (openly admitted)
 * (openly admitted)


 * Code letter: F, G


 * Supporting evidence:
 * Same behaviour; welcoming self on talk page, awarding self barnstars and awards, notification of having Asperger's, editing some of the same articles/templates as User:Thomas Sales in the same way.
 * Appears to confirm previous identities here
 * Admits to IP vandalism here
 * Confirms all sockpuppets mentioned in this case in this unblock request.
 * This is all copied from SSP.

[ roux  ] [ x ] 21:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ =  =  =  = both IPs. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Named accounts blocked & tagged. Tiptoety  talk 04:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Mr. SvMvP

 * This one redirs to User:Mr. SvMvP
 * This one redirs to User:Mr. SvMvP
 * This one redirs to User:Mr. SvMvP


 * These last two are already banned as puppets of


 * Known IPs used:


 * Code letter: G

Same MO; same age; welcoming self on talk page; shows a far greater knowledge of WP than would be expected from a brand-new account from a 13-year-old kid. Compare userpage with this; compare reactions at WP:SSP with  (see unblock requests).
 * Supporting evidence:

Was referred here by User:Scarian,. [ roux  ] [ x ] 19:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find they appear to be blocked as puppets, not banned.--Mr. SvMvP (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This may also be useful (spamming unblock requests), as well as this, where he courteously provides us with his IP; 79.74.8.46 (added above). [ roux  ] [ x ] 19:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

✅ Technical and behavioral evidence available at this time indicates that the following editors are related to each other. There will likely be overlap with Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tom Sayle:

The main account seems to be. Perhaps this should be refiled?

-- Avi (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: does this mean I should change 'suspected' to 'confirmed' sock on his userpage, blank & redir everything? Or does the blocking admin handle that? [ roux  ] [ x ] 20:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, might also want to check these, per this. this diff from Wafulz' page (I think he did the first Tom Sayle block) should also be handy.


 * [ roux  ] [ x ] 20:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

-- Avi (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, case merged from Requests for checkuser/Case/Mr. SvMvP. Also all confirmed socks have been blocked & tagged appropriately. Tiptoety  talk 21:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 02:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Tom Sayle



 * Code letter: C


 * Supporting evidence: See: this ANI report. User:HalfShadow has been receiving numerous threatening vandalisms from the above IP range, and it seems likely that this range is used extensively by Tom Sayle.  See .  A /17 range is quite large; if we could narrow this down to smaller ranges which could still be effective, perhaps it would remove the nuisance from a long-time sockpuppeteer and vandal.  Per a suggestion from User:Rlevse, I have started this RFCU.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  01:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I semi-prot'd Half's talk page for a month last night. All the range block possibilities I tried came up /17 which would block over 32K IPs, which I'm not comfortable with. Therefore, this is another CU for additional input. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 11:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * First off, -->✅ that Tom Sayle is a reincarnation of, and , both indef blocked for vandalism and harassment.  Further new accounts include , , .  AS far as the range is concerned, there are a handful of other editors besides Tom Sayle, and it is not possible to tie the vandal to any of them with a reasonable degree of certainty.  There is a fair amount of IP vandalism from that range as well, so an anon only block would probably cause relatively little inconvenience for good faith users. Thatcher 13:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting that there is no user creation log for User:Mr. Secondattempt. Part of an ancient sleeper sock drawer?  —Wknight94 (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Mr. Secondattempt is an SUL account created on wiktionary. Thatcher 18:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You learn something new every day... —Wknight94 (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, Thatcher, are you saying that you would, based on the checkuser evidence of the range listed above, support a 79.74.0.0/17 anon-only rangeblock? Just want to be clear that this is a good idea before we do it... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  17:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If the problem can be dealt with by semi-protecting Half's talk page, that would be the more conservative approach.  On the other hand, an anon block on the range will have little collateral damage. Thatcher 18:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If the problems stay contained to Half's talk page, then we shouldn't need to rangeblock.  His talk page is semi-protected now.  If this guy starts acting up again, and starts causing more wide ranging problems, I will consider it.  Thanks.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  18:43, 19 October 2008 (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.''