Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Albbbbeeeennnnoooo/Archive

Report date April 26 2009, 21:04 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

See contributions. All edits are mass misinformation additions to association football articles. John Sloan (view / chat) 21:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by John Sloan (view / chat)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Seems like sockpuppetry to me. Canadian  Nine  22:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

Pretty obviously the same user, subtle misinformation - however both accounts are indef blocked already and the IP hasn't been active for a couple of days, no further admin intervention needed at the moment IMO. – Toon (talk)  00:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Thanks Toon / Canadian. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 01:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

sockpuppets blocked and ip inactive, no need for open investigation Canadian   Nine  01:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date May 5 2009, 12:33 (UTC)
See below - request for collateral damage check prior to rangeblock.
 * Suspected sockpuppets

Sockpuppet investigations/Albbbbeeeennnnoooo keeps reappearing on 91.109.xx.xxs with WP:DUCKs — ; would a rangeblock be any good to combat this? The whois seems to think that the range is 91.109.64.0 — 91.109.127.255, would there be too much collateral damage? – Toon (talk)  18:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Toon


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Endorsed by Mayalld (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC) for rangeblock CU check. Mayalld (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * clerk requestcan this be moved to the case subpage and can the case be unarchived? -- Luk  talk (lucasbfr) 08:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at this case briefly, can you take a look and consider which of the following (if any) seem to be socks:
 * It would help. Thanks. FT2 (Talk 10:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Briefly checking the contribs, i'd say all but Ginger Warrior are Albbbbeeeennnnoooo socks. John Sloan (view / chat) 11:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It would help. Thanks. FT2 (Talk 10:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Briefly checking the contribs, i'd say all but Ginger Warrior are Albbbbeeeennnnoooo socks. John Sloan (view / chat) 11:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It would help. Thanks. FT2 (Talk 10:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Briefly checking the contribs, i'd say all but Ginger Warrior are Albbbbeeeennnnoooo socks. John Sloan (view / chat) 11:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It would help. Thanks. FT2 (Talk 10:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Briefly checking the contribs, i'd say all but Ginger Warrior are Albbbbeeeennnnoooo socks. John Sloan (view / chat) 11:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It would help. Thanks. FT2 (Talk 10:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Briefly checking the contribs, i'd say all but Ginger Warrior are Albbbbeeeennnnoooo socks. John Sloan (view / chat) 11:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * case created and formatted. Mayalld (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser Luna Santin believes that a rangeblock would be overkill at this point and there would be collateral damage. . – Toon (talk)  13:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

He's not just on the 91.109 range it would seem. Special:Contributions/91.110.29.145. Looks like he can use any IP starting with 91. John Sloan (view / chat) 15:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

rangeblock not appropriate at thos point. Mayalld (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions