Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brexx/Archive/1

Report date January 22 2009, 13:46 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets:


 * Evidence submitted by Big Bird (talk Ã¢Â?Â¢ contribs)
 * Requests for checkuser/Case/Girl Get it
 * Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Brexx
 * Suspected sock puppets/Brexx
 * Brexx edits from a dynamic IP which makes it easy for him to create new accounts and difficult for us to keep him blocked. As per above provided links, he has created many block-evading sockpuppets and he's not ashamed to admit that he does so on purpose.
 * I believe that User:Anywhere But Home (ABT) exhibits a style of writting that closely matches the style of writing originally detailed in Suspected sock puppets/Brexx.
 * User:Anywhere But Home (ABT) has, among other articles, made many edits to and . Brexx's ongoing checkuser case has confirmed five Brexx sockpuppet accounts (SITDPG, Onceturn, Sinceseems, CHECKORUP, SHOWCONFIG) plus several dynamic IP addresses have edited the same articles within the last several months.
 * Brexx's confirmed sockpuppet Mimibianca placed an unblock template on their own page and so did ABH
 * No diffs are necessary for this one; Brexx was banned for repeated massive copyright violations. A quick glance at the talk pages of Brexx and ABH reveals an immense amount of copyright related warnings as well as many instances of Brexx and ABH defending themselves by reason of ignorance.
 * This unblock request by Brexx and this unblock request by ABH are very similar in that they both say "I'm sorry" and "what else can I say".
 * This unblock request by Mimibianca states "i wasnt violating anything and didnt do anything wrong"; this unblock request by RIHANNA RELOADED states "i didnt do anything wrong"; this unblock request by ABH states "i didnt do anything wrong"; please note that all three of the blocks discussed in this bullet point were earned for edit warring/3RR violations.
 * A checkuser request for ABH was returned as inconclusive due to the fact that ABH edits solely through a proxy. Sam Korn was kind enough to run another check and offer a second opinion in which, he stated that "technically, it's certainly possible" that ABH is Brexx. While this should not be taken by anyone to mean that ABH=Brexx, the RfCU results do not exclude that possibility. The original RfCU request for Girl Get it confirmed that Brexx edits from certain IPs which were proven to originate in the United Arab Emirates. UAE, same as many other countries that censor internet content, is known to use proxies, see this (sorry about any pop-ups).


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Tiptoety talk 19:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

There is a large underlying range that is being forwarded. I've anon-blocked the underlying range, as I think the fallout will not be that great, even though the range is large, but I may have to unblock it if I misjudged the ancillary damage. -- Avi (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Tiptoety talk 21:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Checked the evidence above, that and the reasoning is sound. I have indeffed ABH (which is only telescoping a process which is inevitable anyway, from the behaviour of that account). I have also deleted the improperly licensed images the user uploaded.  Guy (Help!) 20:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the evidence is strong and an indef block is appropriate. Past experience suggests that the editor will file a request for unblock, so this SPI should be kept open a few more days. EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like enough evidence to warrant a CheckUser being ran. Tiptoety  talk 19:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date January 22 2009, 13:46 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Kww (talk Ã¢Â?Â¢ contribs)
 * Requests for checkuser/Case/Girl Get it
 * Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Brexx
 * Suspected sock puppets/Brexx

The original RfCU request for Girl Get it confirmed that Brexx edits from certain IPs which were proven to originate in the United Arab Emirates. UAE, same as many other countries that censor internet content, is known to use proxies, see this (sorry about any pop-ups).

This origination in the UAE would dovetail with Raatm's interest in such topics as Ahla Donya, Bastanak, and Ayami Beek. Aside from those articles, Raatm first edited the day that Brexx' previous sock, was blocked, and immediately returned to the articles that Anywhere But Home has been editing, as well as Brexx's normal interests such as Ashlee Simpson.


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users
 * Please note the identical edits by Anywhere But Home and Raatm  on Template:Lindsay Lohan as well as identical edits (by ABH and by Raatm) on.

&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests
 * - Tiptoety  talk 23:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * ✅ as Anywhere But Home. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 00:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Account tagged and blocked. -- Kanonkas : Talk  00:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Tiptoety talk 20:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Report date February 10 2009, 13:53 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Siawase (talk)

Siawase (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Requests for checkuser/Case/Girl Get it
 * Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Brexx
 * Suspected sock puppets/Brexx
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Brexx/Archive
 * While the Morewiser account hasn't done anything overtly abusive, User:Brexx is banned and the User:Anywhere But Home sock was indef blocked less than a month ago.
 * Morewiser account opened about a week after last Brexx sock User:Raatm was blocked.
 * First edit is to jump in on a talk page and defend the edits of an old Brexx sock.
 * The following edits are to articles Brexx socks have edited previously, User:Anywhere But Home: User:Raatm:  User:Onceturn:
 * Updated the same box office numbers ABH was editing
 * Style issues, similar to Brexx and socks: no space after punctuation - excessive ellipses


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Siawase (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Mayalld (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Mayalld (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * ✅. IPs blocked. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Report date February 26 2009, 15:27 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Siawase (talk)

Siawase (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Look at User talk:Amyseekuif and compare with previous sock User talk:Anywhere But Home, particularly the wording and style of the unblock requests, and the typical overuse of ellipses.
 * Same focus on future releases as previous socks
 * Same tendency to edit war when "right"
 * Edits the same articles as previous socks, apart from Lindsay Lohan, this is an obvious example, almost no one but Brexx socks in the history.


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Siawase (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

. -- Kanonkas : Talk  15:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * due to proxy use. Dominic·t 02:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * , for what it's worth. Dominic·t 06:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

 Syn  ergy 02:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date February 27 2009, 14:46 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Big Bird (talk • contribs)


 * This case is being re-opened further to evidence submitted by Siawase. The CheckUser on the previous case proved to be inconclusive because the accused editor used a proxy to edit so the SPI case was closed and archived. However, Brexx is a user who edits from the United Arab Emirates where proxies are used heavily due to governmental efforts to censor the internet content accessible within that country. Subsequently, User:Anywhere But Home, a confirmed Brexx sock, was also proven to edit from a proxy during the last request at Requests for checkuser/Case/Girl Get it. I am now looking for conclusions based on observed behaviour that I believe proves Amyseekuif to be Brexx.
 * Amyseekuif exhibits a style of writing which matches what I originally described in Suspected sock puppets/Brexx.
 * Brexx is known to blatantly edit/revert war on music related articles for which virtually all of his socks received at least a 3RR/edit war warning and User:Anywhere But Home, User:Mimibianca and User:RIHANNA RELOADED have been temporarily blocked prior to indef-blocking for sockpuppetry.
 * There is an obvious similarity in filing unblock requests between Amyseekuifand other proven Brexx socks. More specifically, requests for unblock when he's been blocked for 3RR/edit warring. This unblock request by Mimibianca states "i didnt do anything wrong"; this unblock request by RIHANNA RELOADED states "i didnt do anything wrong"; this unblock request by ABH states "i didnt do anything wrong". These unblock request by Amyseekuifand all say "i didn't do anything wrong".
 * Amyseekuif, like some other Brexx sokpuppets, has made several edits, an album by Rihanna. Brexx's previous sockpuppet names include User:Good Guy Gone Bad and User:RIHANNA RELOADED.
 * Amyseekuif has made many edits to . Brexx has five confirmed sockpuppet accounts (SITDPG, Onceturn, Sinceseems, CHECKORUP, SHOWCONFIG, Anywhere_But_Home) plus several dynamic IP addresses have edited the same article within the last several months.


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Account blocked by, with a duration of indefinite. -- Kanonkas : Talk  14:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date March 4 2009, 19:13 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Two single-purpose accounts dedicated to including information on "Spirit in the Dark", a cancelled Lindsay Lohan album. This area has been one of the dedicated interests of the the last few Brexx socks, notably, , and .&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by &mdash;Kww(talk)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by &mdash;Kww(talk) 19:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * - Tiptoety  talk 23:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

- that these two are related to each other and based on info from the recent Brexx socks, they are also ❌ to Brexx. -- Versa geek  00:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date March 6 2009, 17:07 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Big Bird (talk • contribs)
 * After Amyseekuif, the last confirmed Brexx sock, was blocked I proceeded to revert some of Amyseekuif edits including this revert on and this revert on  leaving a clear explanation in my edit summary as to the reasons for the revert. Fidodidoman reverted those two edits  without additional reasons why. Please also note that the Bet'oul Eih article was created by a confirmed sock - User:Onceturn - and had been edited by User:Amyseekuif while the Ayami Beek article has been edited by User:Onceturn, User:Anywhere But Home, User:Raatm and User:Amyseekuif and several IPs previously connected to Brexx.
 * Brexx edits articles that can be completely unrelated to each other which can make it easy to recognize his edits when one editor edits all of these unrelated articles. Here are some articles that are unrelated to each other but that have all been edited by Fidodidoman as well as confirmed Brexx socks:
 * and ? - edited by heavily by Amyseekuif
 * - edited by heavily by Anywhere But Home and a few edits by Raatm, SHOWCONFIG, IJALB and related IPs
 * edited by J.looo, Let's Migrate, I Wish You Well and some related IPs
 * a wide range of middle eastern music related articles such, among them, , , , and , all of them previously edited by confirmed Brexx socks and IPs
 * and, of course, Lindsay Lohan related articles such as, , , , ; Brexx is well known for his aggressive editing in all of the Lohan articles


 * By themselves, each one of the above articles may be edited by a wide variety of editors and Brexx may not be the only one. However, an interest in such a specific combination of articles is quite unique to Brexx.
 * A note for the CheckUser: due to the extremely unstable nature of Brexx's IP (dynamic IP + proxies), please make sure to compare the information of to the information of the last confirmed sock


 * One more additional note: Fidodidoman has now again restored content previously added by Brexx to articles and . This time, instead of reverting me, content was added incrementally but it is content identical to Brexx's previous versions of the article.


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

. Recommended to possibly find more socks/sleepers. -- Kanonkas : Talk  17:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * ✅. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 05:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * -- Kanonkas : Talk  21:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Report date March 11 2009, 15:46 (UTC)
New account, ran directly to the Lindsay Lohan articles, and began Brexx's typical pattern of insanely long series of small edits that take the article backwards in time to previous versions.
 * Suspected sockpuppets
 * Evidence submitted by &mdash;Kww(talk)
 * Evidence submitted by &mdash;Kww(talk)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by &mdash;Kww(talk) 15:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Account blocked as a sock of Brexx. -- Kanonkas : Talk  15:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Let see if we can get that underlying ip blocked again, and possible check for any sleepers.  Syn  ergy 15:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

-- Kanonkas : Talk  17:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * ✅, also blocked some sleepers which I had previously left unblocked since I was unsure of sockpuppetry at the time. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Report date March 22 2009, 16:57 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by &mdash;Kww(talk)

Same as the last umpteen Brexx socks ... homes in on the Lindsay Lohan articles, and proceeds to edit with innumerable tiny serial edits. Brexx is such a prolific puppeteer, a sweep is always in order once he finds a new proxy to edit through.


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by &mdash;Kww(talk) 16:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * endorsed. ——  nix eagle email me 18:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * ✅. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you check if he was editing through a proxy and if so did you block it? This is not the first case we have had with this user. We already knew that RECONFIRMIT was a sock of this user. ——  nix eagle email me 19:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, forgot to mention that. I blocked the proxies when I ran the check. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * - case is done. ——  nix eagle email me 20:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Report date March 25 2009, 03:50 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by &mdash;Kww(talk)

Created immediately after last Brexx sock was blocked, and began editing favorite Brexx haunts like Lindsay Lohan and Sims articles.


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users
 * I would concur that all signs point to this being Brexx. Other than editing the exact same set of non-related articles that Brexx usually edits, Upto30days has edited ; Brexx had earlier created a sockpuppet named User:Amyseekuif which contains the same words as the song title only backwards. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, could a CheckUser confirm whether has edited from . They have both made a post to Talk:Hilary Duff today asking for the same change to be made to the article (article is semi'd, they were unable to make the change themselves) and the IP's Whois points to the address being from United Arab Emirates, confirmed multiple times to be Brexx's country of origin. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note the second possible sock I added. Created today, same MO. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested by &mdash;Kww(talk) 03:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * , no open proxies that I can see. However someone with a better knowledge of XFF for further digging. --  lucasbfr  talk 11:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I recognize the ISP and location – trademark Brexx. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 05:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you please clarify whether your comments apply to both Upto30days and Babyjeremaiha? The late addition of Babyjeremaiha makes that unclear.&mdash;Kww(talk) 11:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Both of them. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering your knowledge of this combined with the above CU results, do you consider this enough of a basis for blocking the two accounts? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

Report date March 31 2009, 12:38 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Created a mere 28 minutes after and  were blocked, again editing Sims and Lindsay Lohan articles.
 * Evidence submitted by &mdash;Kww(talk)

Isn't there something more effective we can do against this? Or should I just be viewing Brexx as an efficient open-proxy detector? At the least, it's time for the usual sweep-and-block exercise.

why do u keep doing this....im Assuming good faith...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drawnunderwateryeah (talk • contribs) 16:35, 31 March 2009
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users
 * User:Wkkkkkkkkk blanked this page earlier, I added his as a suspected sockpuppet. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and User:Legalvoiceeee as well. A general sweep and block of underlying IP may be in order. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested by &mdash;Kww(talk) 12:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * I ran a comparison for other viewers. Will be back to comment further.  Syn  ergy 12:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I added User:Babeldoor after he blanked this page.  Syn  ergy 16:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And User:Wkkkkkkkkk.  Syn  ergy 16:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ all. Moreover, is  (no edits) --  lucasbfr  talk 20:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All blocked and tagged. KnightLago (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

Report date April 18 2009, 21:59 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

If you are familiar with Brexx's writing style, this diff alone is enough. Couple that with zooming straight for Spirit in the Dark (Lindsay Lohan album) and Jennifer Hudson articles, and it's confirmed in my book. Time for another sweep.
 * Evidence submitted by &mdash;Kww(talk)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by &mdash;Kww(talk) 21:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * - Tiptoety  talk 07:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * Blocked & tagged. Tiptoety  talk 07:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Report date May 4 2009, 17:18 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets



Another, closely related IP,, spent December trying to edit-war Bump (song), an article redirected for failing WP:NSONGS, back into existence by undoing the redirect. The article was semi-protected to prevent recurrences. Recently, Yamh91 has been edit-warring on the same article, undoing redirects and deleting AFD notices. There is a nearly identical history at Backflip (song), with the same IP originally edit-warring the article, and Yamh91 taking up the mantle after the article was semiprotected. Since deleting the AFD notices is clearly vandalism, Yamh91 has worked his way up to final warning status. Now, a second IP, 189.237.105.162, has taken to scrawling obscenities on my talk page and falsely accusing me of vandalism, much as Yamh91 likes to accuse me of vandalism. He is up to a level 3 vandalism warning now, so Yamh91 would have been blocked already had he not used the IP as cover.
 * Evidence submitted by &mdash;Kww(talk)

The timeline for the scrawling on my talk page is telling:
 * 01:43, 3 May 2009 Yamh91 deletes the AFD message
 * 01:44, 3 May 2009 I revert it.
 * 01:45, 3 May 2009 I drop yet another warning on Yamh91's talk page.
 * 01:48, 3 May 2009 189.237.105.162 drops obscenities on my talk page.

Dbunkley6 raises my suspicions simply by editing in tandem with Yamh91: wherever Yamh91 goes, Dbunkley6 seems to follow. It is possible that Dbunkley and Yamh91 are the same editor, and it is also possible that Dbunkley6 is the abusive IP.


 * Commenting on the merge: I will be amazed if Yamh91 is Brexx. It's possible, but unlikely in my eye. Dbunkley6 being Brexx would not surprise me much, however, so merging the reports isn't a bad idea.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Evidence submitted by Big Bird (talk • contribs)

Same articles edited, same style od many minor serial edits on the same article, same style of writing as evidenced by this edit. Very typical Brexx behaviour. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that shortly after LOINLO was blocked, editors reverted LOINLO's edits to pre-Brexx versions of article he edited. has since reverted back many of those articles.


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Blocked. -- Kanonkas : Talk  17:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * To reinstate the prior anon-block on the range (see archives). Nathan  T (formerly Avruch) 18:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think these two requests probably have the same sockmaster (Yamh91 and Brexx, with Brexx as the master) so I've merged them into a single request and left it endorsed. Nathan  T (formerly Avruch) 18:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note . Nathan  T (formerly Avruch) 18:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yamh91 is not obviously related to other accounts listed, but does have a small habit of edit warring as anon.
 * Dbunkley6 looks to be a former anon who's since registered. Not obviously related to any shenanigans.
 * LOINLO has also been doing a fair bit of anon editing, by the looks of it, and is / related to several accounts blocked as Brexx socks, including:
 * (this is a newer one, not blocked currently)
 * So, there you have it. Didn't check Petergriffin9901, and they didn't turn up on any checks I made. – Luna Santin  (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (this is a newer one, not blocked currently)
 * So, there you have it. Didn't check Petergriffin9901, and they didn't turn up on any checks I made. – Luna Santin  (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So, there you have it. Didn't check Petergriffin9901, and they didn't turn up on any checks I made. – Luna Santin  (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So, there you have it. Didn't check Petergriffin9901, and they didn't turn up on any checks I made. – Luna Santin  (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So, there you have it. Didn't check Petergriffin9901, and they didn't turn up on any checks I made. – Luna Santin  (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So, there you have it. Didn't check Petergriffin9901, and they didn't turn up on any checks I made. – Luna Santin  (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So, there you have it. Didn't check Petergriffin9901, and they didn't turn up on any checks I made. – Luna Santin  (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

 Syn  ergy 21:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date May 7 2009, 11:14 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Pretty obvious: restoring edits by AGAGALADY and LOINLO, began shortly after I reverted all of AGAGALADY's edits. Requesting checkuser because I think it's always important to request a sweep and block of the underlying IP with a prolific proxy-abusing sockpuppeteer like Brexx.
 * Evidence submitted by &mdash;Kww(talk)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by &mdash;Kww(talk) 11:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * All accounts blocked and tagged. Icestorm815  •  Talk  19:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * ✅ and  as Brexx. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Report date June 18 2009, 16:55 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Big Bird

Same MO, same articles edited. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Some of the edit summaries certainly feel familiar: is classic Brexx, as is. I also agree with Big Bird that the basic editing style, with the serial streams of unsummarized edits feels like Brexx as well.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

Requested by Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

. This looks like a duck case but a look through the archive reveals that checkuser has found more than one sockpuppet in recent reports. So I'm endorsing this for checkuser attention. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 13:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

✅, along with Youraboutwhatboy. Dominic·t 00:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

Blocked and tagged both. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 00:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Report date June 23 2009, 12:33 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Forgivenesss account was created shortly after the last two socks were confirmed and blocked. All of the same articles are being edited in the same aggressive manner with minor serial edits. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Big Bird


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Quack.&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

Requested by Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Standard check.  Sy  n 18:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * ✅. Blocked a bunch of IPs. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Report date June 24 2009, 12:31 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Created shortly after the last confirmed sockpuppet was blocked, Mwakapah is editing all of the same articles that Brexx has edited in the last 2-3 days and is adding back all the information that I deleted by reverting his edits. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Big Bird


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Standard check; sweep.  Sy  n 17:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * ✅. More IPs blocked, but I don't think it really makes a difference. Anon. only, account creation blocked is useless when Brexx just makes accounts on open proxies. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Report date June 26 2009, 13:48 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

WP:DUCK. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Big Bird


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * - Tiptoety  talk 04:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * Blocked. Tiptoety  talk 04:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Report date July 1 2009, 18:49 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Big Bird


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I can sense Big Bird's exhaustion. The regular litany: accounts first edits are from shortly after the block of the preceding Brexx sock,. The edit history of this account has virtually 100% overlap with and the sock before that,. Editing style is classic Brexx: innumerable little tiny edits done in bursts, with a complete lack of edit summaries on any changes.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

Requested by Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Could you provide some evidence that would explain how the users are related? We're unable to do a an investigation, much less a check, without any evidence. Thanks! Icestorm815 •  Talk  22:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Thanks, Kww. Icestorm815 •  Talk  05:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC) These are WP:DUCKs and should be blocked on sight. The IPs are proxies and unless account creation is blocked on them, there is not much we can do. For what it is worth:
 * Conclusions

-- Avi (talk) 05:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking the IPs. Icestorm815 •  Talk  06:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Report date July 3 2009, 12:33 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

WP:DUCK Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Big Bird


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

More specifically: picked up where left off. Began when that account was blocked, editing the same articles.&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

Requested by Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * ✅. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Report date July 8 2009, 17:29 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Another WP:DUCK case for Brexx. Started editing on July 5, when the last Brexx sock, was blocked on July 3. 100% editing overlap with recent Brexx socks.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Kww


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Blocked and tagged. Icestorm815 •  Talk  19:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions

Report date July 18 2009, 12:55 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets



AndreaCarax has been blocked three times for edit-warring, specifically for refusing to accept the characterization of Mariah Carey and Keri Hilson as "pop" singers. See:
 * Evidence submitted by Kww
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=We_Belong_Together&diff=302761129&oldid=302652458
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don%27t_Forget_About_Us&diff=287328051&oldid=285515742
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=In_a_Perfect_World...&diff=298943612&oldid=298693610
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=In_a_Perfect_World...&diff=298010984&oldid=298007473
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=In_a_Perfect_World...&diff=298007023&oldid=297999028
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=In_a_Perfect_World...&diff=297954055&oldid=297915142
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=In_a_Perfect_World...&diff=297914107&oldid=297891316
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=In_a_Perfect_World...&diff=297603763&oldid=297602830
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=In_a_Perfect_World...&diff=297600948&oldid=297600756

As for specific evidence of block evasion, this edit occured while AndreaCarax was blocked. The underlying IP range seems quite narrow, and I would like to evaluate whether a hard block can be performed: this editor is obviously quite stubborn, and I doubt a soft block would be particularly effective.&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've requested that this case be split back out. If it is, you have my permission to delete this comment. If it is not, I feel pretty strongly that AndreaCarax is a distinct entity from Brexx, but that her socking and block evasion are sufficient to warrant a block against the named account and the underlying IPs. Brexx is from the UAE, and edits via worldwide proxies and from anonymous UAE addresses. He edits in bursts of uncommented edits. AndreaCarax is Italian. She uses Italian blogs and music sites as sources for articles, and, when editing anonymously, edits through a tiny little range of Italian IPs. She focuses quite heavily on removing "pop" from genre lists, an issue which hasn't been of much concern to Brexx.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I concur with Big Bird that Kellycya most likely is Brexx: fits Brexx editing patterns and interests, created in an appropriate timeframe. I once again beg, on bended knees, that a clerk split these two cases apart again. Kellycya can be blocked without a checkuser, as it is a case of WP:DUCK. AndreaCarax is clearly a sockpuppeteer, but is a completely different case from Brexx. Handling them together will create nothing but confusion, as it did when Yamh91 was invalidly merged, despite his account clearly being a Mexican account dedicated to Raven-Symone. We have multiple problems on pop music articles, and it is to no-one's benefit to blur them together. The appropriate time to merge a case is after a check-user has confirmed identity, not before.&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users
 * AndreaCarax has been blocked for a week due to the edit war, especially the use of an apparent sockpuppet here. lifebaka++ 16:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I sincerely doubt AndreaCarax is Brexx because AndreaCarax's account is in existance since late 2008 and we've run dozens of CheckUser requests since then. It would have come up as related to some of the other accounts Brexx had created and edited from during that time. However, I added to the above list of suspects because this account seems to fit the pattern of edits and was created quite recently. I would be fairly certain this is Brexx. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested by &mdash;Kww(talk) 12:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

The account and IP are most likely socks of the user Brexx, who makes similar edits to pop singers such as Mariah Carey. I think a check would help to flush out any sleepers and to check to see if a range block would be feasible from the recent IPs listed. Icestorm815 •  Talk  19:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

underlying IP range blocked for 2 weeks. MuZemike 21:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * ✅ as Brexx.  looks ❌, but that user has also engaged in disruptive behavior while logged off. The IPs listed above are AndreaCarax. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Report date July 22 2009, 12:31 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Account created shortly after previous sock was confirmed and blocked, resumed editing all of the same articles. WP:DUCK case of Brexx sockpuppetry but CheckUser might be needed to flush out any possible sleeper accounts. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Big Bird


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * ✅, blocked open proxy. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Report date July 23 2009, 15:45 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

WP:DUCK case of Brexx sockpuppetry. Account created shortly after previous one blocked, same atricles edited. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Big Bird


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * ✅, IP blocked. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Report date July 23 2009, 23:10 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Let's nip this one in the bud. The only user that has ever tried to resurrect Spirit in the Dark (Lindsay Lohan album) from redirect is Brexx. He did it as and, but it's always Brexx.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Kww


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Tiptoety  talk 03:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Request for CheckUser
 * - I have blocked the above account, but need a CheckUser to perform yet another IP block. Tiptoety  talk 03:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * ✅. Open proxy blocked. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Report date July 28 2009, 13:52 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Standard Brexx WP:DUCK case. Worth running a CheckUser to confirm whether any new accounts might have been created during SOSOLAME's 12hr block on July 26. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Big Bird


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * ✅. IP blocked. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 13:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Tagged. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 13:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Report date July 29 2009, 19:39 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

WP:DUCK. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Big Bird


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Sockpuppet indef blocked by Nishkid64 twenty minutes ago; presumably, he has already decided whether or not to run the check. Note, though, that he has not blocked anyone since then. NW ( Talk ) 15:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

-- Kanonkas : Talk  16:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date 04:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Although I've had no prior interaction or knowledge with Brexx or any of the socks. I first suspected something fishy when installed Twinkle within their first couple edits. After digging around, I have reason to believe Ladgy is just another reincarnation of Brexx. Ladgy has edit warring tendencies similar to those of past sockpuppets, specifically like had the same tendencies—unsurprisingly enough, they happen to be in in the same article. —  S  xplicit  04:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by —  S  xplicit


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users
 * I'd be surprised if this was Brexx, who hasn't got a monopoly on being an immature edit-warrior. Timing is wrong (there've been a few sweeps for Brexx since Ladgy was created), and the threatening tone he uses (such as here and here) is pretty unBrexx. Brexx is a whiner, this guy snaps at people.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually this is a sockpuppet of another user, who created an article on the Lady Gaga song Brown Eyes. However, persistent threats and user page vandalism led to indefinite block. The user came back under another name where he/she installed the Twinkle similarly stated above and created the same page. But was blocked again.  --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 08:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions

There are few behavioural similarities between Brexx and this user, mostly highlighted by Kww above. Brexx also rarely used edit summaries, whereas this user uses them quite frequently. As such, I doubt there is a connection. Peter <b style="color:#02b;">Symonds</b> ( talk ) 22:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Report date August 5 2009, 12:39 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Standard litany: created shortly after the previous Brexx sock,, was blocked. Editing the same articles as previous Brexx socks. As always, the proxy he used to create the account needs to be blocked, so a checkuser is required.&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Kww
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by &mdash;Kww(talk) 12:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * ✅. IP blocked. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Report date August 11 2009, 01:14 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Someone created the miscapitalized article and Youdisapeartothesky was drawn to it like a moth to flame. The correctly capitalized version is a favorite target of Brexx's, as he likes to restore it from redirect. Anyone familiar with Brexx will look at this edit and recognize him immediately.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Kww


 * More detail for the non-so-intimately familiar: from the history of "Spirit in the Dark (Lindsay Lohan album)",, , and are all Brexx socks. That's three out of four content contributors, and I'm willing to bet that  is just a sock we missed.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

So is this closed now, or is someone going to see this comment? Betcha one month of a Checkuser's salary that this is him too: Special:Contributions/Liam.gloucester; just posted at Talk:Spirit In The Dark (Lindsay Lohan album) after lying dormant for several years. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users
 * I noticed Liam's post and I thought it curious myself but I sincerely doubt this to be Brexx. The creation of Liam's account pre-dates the creation of the original Brexx account and experience has shown that Brexx does not think far ahead enough to create sleeper socks. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, my knowledge of Brexx is limited to what I've read in the last 15 minutes, so I'll defer to your more extensive experience. Timing sure is funky, tho. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely funky! Had I more than two eyebrows, I'd have raised them all when I read his comment and checked his logs. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested by MuZemike 18:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC) for CU attention to make a check on User:Liam.gloucester. MuZemike 18:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * ✅, IP blocked. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like this was relisted, with Liam.gloucester added to the page after Nishkid64's result above; I can second the prior result, but Liam.gloucester appears to be ❌ at first glance (it's possible a CU with more direct experience might see something I missed). – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Report date August 25 2009, 11:50 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Looks like Brexx is getting a little smarter. was blocked on August 5, and Physcofreakretro was created on August 8. Same range of articles and type of editing typical for a Brexx sock. We were distracted by, which was apparently a throw-away sock. If confirmed, we should take note of the new strategy of creating multiple socks.&mdash;Kww(talk) 11:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Kww
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Just a note: the account has not yet been blocked and is still editing. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

Requested by &mdash;Kww(talk) 11:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 12:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * ✅, IP blocked. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 13:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Report date August 27 2009, 12:31 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Recently created, editing all of the usual articles in the usual way. A sweep for sleeper socks may again be in order. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Big Bird


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Concur. Of the 12 articles edited by Monsterofmylifeyouwillbe, 9 of them were just edited by Physcofreakretro, the last Brexx sock to be blocked.&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

Requested by Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * ✅, IP blocked. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Report date September 13 2009, 15:53 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Kww

Started up a few days after the last Brexx sock was blocked: typical Brexx editing pattern of innumerable tiny, uncommented changes that would be unnecessary if he ever learned how to use a "preview" button, same general topic of interest. Resurrecting article edited by previous Brexx sock. Monsterofmylifeyouwillbe edited only 12 articles, Teammelarky had revisited six of them. Most of the remaining were articles found interesting by Psychofreakretro. As usual, sweep and proxy-block will require checkuser attention.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like this one is getting processed a bit out of sequence: per Teammelarky's block log, Nishkidi64 has already blocked, presumably after a checkuser.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by &mdash;Kww(talk) 15:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions

Already blocked by User:Nishkid64 (which I'm assuming was already checked). MuZemike 16:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Report date September 15 2009, 13:35 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Kww

As always, checkuser requested to find the proxy and block it. Took up immediately after Teammelarky was blocked, editing primarily articles that Teammelarky had been editing. This rambling incoherent sentence is stereotypically Brexx.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by &mdash;Kww(talk) 13:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * ✅ and one range blocked. His main range is too busy though. Brandon (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged. MuZemike 17:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date September 16 2009, 02:11 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Kww

Created today, just after block of Nopassengersonmyplane. Restored Nopassengersonmyplane's edits to Stronger (Mary J. Blige album), editing Sweet Dreams (Beyoncé Knowles song), which Teammelarky edited. Checkuser needed for proxy identification and blocking, other than that it's a duck.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As the account edits further, it continues to quack:Body Language (Jesse McCartney song) was edited by Nopassengersonmyplane, Walkin' on the Moon and Funhouse (song) were edited by Teammelarky.&mdash;Kww(talk) 11:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Confirmed by editor here, my response here.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 24.185.139.174 began restoring reverted edits.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * IPs gone mad restoring edits. Added a couple more.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by &mdash;Kww(talk) 02:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Allicansayissalute is /✅, recommend applying WP:DUCK in case of anons. – Luna Santin  (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * Account tagged and blocked indef; IPs blocked for a week. Closing case. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 19:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Report date September 18 2009, 10:59 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Compete duck again. Popped up this morning, restoring edits by Whatevergoooooos. Checkuser required only to block underlying proxies.&mdash;Kww(talk) 10:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Evidence submitted by Kww


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by &mdash;Kww(talk) 10:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * ✅, (same as above) --  Luk  talk 13:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

Report date September 18 2009, 00:43 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Created after Nopassengersonmyplane was uncovered. 10 articles in common with Teammelarky. Restored Allicansayissalute's edits to Funhouse. Restored Nopassengersonmyplane's edits to Stronger (Mary J. Blige song) and The One (Mary J. Blige song). As always, a duck, but a checkuser is required to uncover the proxy used to create the account and block it. I think we need to develop an expedited procedure for this so we can reduce the damage Brexx causes: the lag through the system always winds up with articles that I can't completely unwind because other editors have edited on top of his edits.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Evidence submitted by Kww


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by &mdash;Kww(talk) 00:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Blocked per WP:DUCK, but checkuser might be useful to root our the IP. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 00:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. He's been using his usual set of (anon-blocked) IPs. Blocked the one he used to create the account but I fear it already got reassigned... -- Luk  talk 06:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

Report date September 22 2009, 22:24 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Requesting checkuser solely to look for a proxy. Typical Brexx edits, created shortly after last Brexx sock blocked.
 * Evidence submitted by Kww
 * Overlaps with
 * Overlaps with
 * {{la|Sweet Dreams (Beyoncé Knowles song)
 * Overlaps with {{userlinks|Allicansayissalute}}
 * {{la|Sweet Dreams (Beyoncé Knowles song)
 * {{la|Video Phone}}
 * Overlaps with {{userlinks|Teammelarky}}
 * {{la|Ciara discography}}
 * {{la|Funhouse (song)}}
 * {{la|Jennifer Lopez}}
 * {{la|Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song)}}
 * {{la|Slow Dance (song)}}
 * {{la|Sweet Dreams (Beyoncé Knowles song)}}
 * {{la|Jennifer Lopez}}
 * {{la|Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song)}}
 * {{la|Slow Dance (song)}}
 * {{la|Sweet Dreams (Beyoncé Knowles song)}}
 * {{la|Sweet Dreams (Beyoncé Knowles song)}}

&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Feels strange to do it this way, but Nathan requested that I not go back through the top menu, but instead remark old cases with new data and edit the RFCU request. We'll see how this works. Me, I like the other way better already. Today, we have {{userlinks|Havingatypicalemotionalupset}}, who is editing solely articles edited by the last few socks. He duped the editors at WP:RFPP into unprotecting {{la|Sweet Dreams (Beyoncé Knowles song)}} and {{la|Jennifer Lopez}}, using 69.198.44.221 to do so. Checkuser for proxies, and would someone please restore semi-protection to those articles?

Looking at a preview, I think this is absolutely the wrong way to go for opening new requests, as it causes everthing to get scrambled together. Please note that no one has checked Havingatypicalemotionalupset or the IP, no one has reached any conclusions about them, and neither have been blocked.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I need to stop welcoming these damn socks. — ?  {{sup|xplicit}}  23:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

{{RFCU| E | No2ndletter | Checked }}   Requested by &mdash;Kww(talk) 22:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Somewhat out of place here, but I'll pretend to be a clerk for a moment: per Nathan's suggestion, I've removed the closed tag, and noted here that I have added Havingatypicalemotionalupset and 69.198.44.221.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * {{relisted}} <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 22:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Kww. (To be clear for others, I asked that Kww not add a new report when there is a report currently open. If previous reports are closed and archived, a new report is the way to go.) <strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan {{sup|<strong style="color:#0033CC"> T  }} 01:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Not proxies. Brandon (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not clear to me if Havingatypicalemotionalupset was checked, and what the result was.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * {{confirmed}}, IP blocked. Nishkid64 {{sub|(Make articles, not wikidrama)}} 22:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Tagged and blocked. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 23:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

{{SPIclose|archive}}

{{SPIarchive notice|Brexx}}

Report date December 6 2009, 15:59 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Aside from the general range of interests matching Brexx's range, this editor has recreated Spirit in the Dark (Lindsay Lohan album). To date, every editor that has recreated that article has been a Brexx sock.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Kww

See Defending yourself against claims.
 * Comments by accused parties


 * Comments by other users

Requested by &mdash;Kww(talk) 15:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

– While this is mostly WP:DUCK, it's been a couple of months in which CU was run on this user, so it may be possible that blocks on some of the previously used IPs and ranges may have expired, or that the person is using other IPs or ranges that we may not know about. MuZemike 19:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Nothing else obvious at this time. Thatcher 00:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * Blocked per WP:DUCK.  Tiptoety  talk 04:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Report date December 8 2009, 20:37 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Big Bird

Per usual articles edited by Brexx and per writing style in this edit.

Furthermore, especially if CU on this account returns positive, I would like to express sincere doubt that is a Brexx sock. I didn't catch the prior report and, now that I've reviewed it, I don't see any give-aways that this is Brexx. Brexx has never operated more than one unblocked account at a time, he's never even created sleeper accounts. Also, in his previous 90 or so blocked accounts, Brexx has never made a single edit to his own user page so this would be pretty unusual. Therefore, I would ask that RuuBjAh be unblocked pending results of the new CU report. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

See Defending yourself against claims.
 * Comments by accused parties


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * . I'd prefer not to overturn Tiptoety's block without clear evidence saying that the account Tiptoety blocked is not a sock. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 20:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Based on comparison to User:Gaylambert and User:Havingatypicalemotionalupset:
 * is - they're on the same network as the two accounts above, but the useragents don't match up.
 * appears ❌ - they're on a different network in a different country, and the useragent doesn't match up with any of the other three accounts. However, if clearly disruptive, then they should remain blocked. See also note below.
 * I'd recommend getting input from a checkuser who's looked into these cases before to confirm these results; there's some funkiness I'm not entirely sure about. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 00:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The basis of RuuBjAh being reported was the similarity of interest subjects and articles edited to those of Brexx. There was no disruptive editing on RuuBjAh's part and, admittedly, many of the articles they edited were consistent with Brexx. If CU results show RuuBjAh unrelated to Brexx, then it was merely a case of mistaken identity and he should be unblocked.
 * As far as funkiness regarding the possible positives, it may stem from the fact that Brexx is geographically located in the United Arab Emirates. UAE monitors and censors internet access by virtue of employing proxy servers. Brexx's IP has, therefore, always been highly dynamic and he has always edited from a proxy. Hopefully that explains things a bit. If not, Thatcher is fairly familiar with this case and can offer some insight, perhaps. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that while my block was based somewhat on behavior, it was also based on Thatcher's comments which lead me to believe the account was confirmed (though, I will admit it was not very clear). Tiptoety  talk 16:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * IIRC (I forgot to take notes on this one) all of the IPs involved were using XFF headers - the headers for RuuBjAh were entirely unrelated to the UAE, however Teleyonce's did. I do agree that Thatcher's comment was rather ambiguous, so I'll ask him to weigh in here. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 21:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have saved checkuser data on Brexx. The question previously was "I have already blocked RuuBjAh, are there any sleepers."  The answer was "nothing obvious" meaning, no sleepers on RuuBjAh's network who were obviously the same person.  However RuuBjAh is ❌ to Teleyonce, Gaylambert and Havingatypicalemotionalupset. Thatcher 22:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Will someone, please, unblock RuuBjAh in that case? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 23:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur. The reason I requested a checkuser on RuuBjAh was that I didn't find the behavioural evidence compelling, just suspicious enough to warrant a look. If a checkuser didn't support it being the same editor, I can't see any reason to keep him blocked.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

✅ by. Sorry for the confusion I caused, I misinterpreted 's comments. Tiptoety talk 06:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks to everyone involved for unblocking RuuBjAh. I have left a message on his talk page explaining what happened because I get the impression that he might not be familiar enough with the internal processes of Wikipedia to understand that he was blocked (especially why he was blocked) and, per established protocol of blocking Brexx's socks, Template:Block was not placed on his talk page to notify him that anything might be wrong. I sent him an email as well in case he has given up trying to log on to Wikipedia.
 * Next order of business, can someone please block now that we know it's Brexx? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've looked over the edits, and concur with Big Bird that Teleyonce appears to be Brexx. If the checkuser data doesn't contradict it, a block should be put in place.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * blocked and tagged. Tiptoety  talk 08:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Report date December 16 2009, 13:39 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Big Bird

In addition to editing the same articles as recently blocked, the 86.96.227.86 IP is engaged in a slow edit war with User:Lil-unique1 on the article , the same as Teleyonce was. Also, this style of talk page writing is textbook Brexx. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Per further research, block log for 86.96.227.86 shows previous match of this IP to Brexx and a three month block. I believe a CU sweep is still needed to flush out possible accounts or related IP addresses and proxies. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

See Defending yourself against claims.
 * Comments by accused parties


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

– Let's try anon-only first, since we're only dealing with IPs here. If registered accounts start popping up in this range (i.e. this range is normally not used by Brexx), then come back and request CU. MuZemike 19:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

86.96.227.86 blocked 6 months, 86.96.224.0/21 blocked 48 hours. (It is a busy range as far as anons are concerned, so I'm reluctant to block longer than that.) MuZemike 19:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions