Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Vitrox92

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

Vitrox92



 * Code letter: C.
 * Supporting evidence:, , ,
 * Code letter: C.
 * Supporting evidence:, , ,
 * Code letter: C.
 * Supporting evidence:, , ,
 * Code letter: C.
 * Supporting evidence:, , ,
 * Code letter: C.
 * Supporting evidence:, , ,
 * Code letter: C.
 * Supporting evidence:, , ,
 * Code letter: C.
 * Supporting evidence:, , ,
 * Code letter: C.
 * Supporting evidence:, , ,
 * Supporting evidence:, , ,

Group of user accounts and IP addresses in the 125.164.x.x range has a history of creating hoax articles and adding hoax material to existing articles related to Indonesia, especially airports and airlines. Caniago (talk) 08:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Results
That should do it I think. ++Lar: t/c 16:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Vitrox92 == Arkanov15 == Arkanov92 == Kompul76 == Rockyroad92 == TreTaN21 (retag all as confirmed pointing to this case)
 * ✅ above == the following as well (based on behaviour related to airports, tag or retag all as confirmed)
 * (not currently blocked)
 * (not currently blocked)
 * (not currently blocked)
 * (already blocked and tagged as suspected Vitrox92 sock, can be moved to confirmed as with the rest)
 * (usernameblock, but should be retagged/additional tagged as sock)
 * (tagged as vandal but should be retagged)
 * above == this additional one... it's very very likely, could call it confirmed if you want.
 * ... tried hand at hoaxing stadiums, see AfD on Bali Wangi Stadium
 * Regarding the IPs... I did not exhaustively check the IPs listed against the data (but have it saved, can if must)... spot checked half a dozen all match, no misses, so suggest that the IPs identified are indeed all matches. However, this is a wide IP range (125.164.128.0/18), belonging to an ISP and is used by others, including users and innocent IPs as well. I would advise against a range block at this time, unfortunately... the best that can be done is to keep blocking on behaviour and perhaps periodically do one of these checks to look for more new IDs not found (I found a few above). Subsequent CU: Please contact me for the log of my investigation.
 * could you check to see if there are previous cases this should be combined with?
 * there is a fair bit of tagging and retagging work needed as well, if you would be so kind.
 * All tagged and indef-blocked. Keilana talk(recall) 22:05, 5 January 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.''