Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pwningall/Archive

Report date March 13 2010, 01:05 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Same edits as suspected master, just a few minutes after the master was blocked. Obvious duck case, CU isn't required. —  Dæ dαlus Contribs 01:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by —  Dæ dαlus Contribs


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Sock blocked indef. Master's block extended a bit to 31 hours. One more and it will be a week. Tim Song (talk) 01:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

tagged, SpitfireTally-ho! 09:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets




Evidence submitted by Daedalus969
Same MO as the sock master, vandalizing Marriage by changing individuals to a man and a woman.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 00:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Just added. Obvious sock per WP:DUCK. Only added them to help the CU narrow down a possible range block.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 01:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
I think they're related. Looks like a checkuser is needed to confirm or deny the suspicions. — Mythdon (talk)  (contribs) 00:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Fsushi is now indef'd for edit-warring with everyone under the sun. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fsushilcom is indeffed as a vandalism-only account. It certainly looks like they're a sock of Pwningall (now there's a username that looks a touch dodgy in itself). At the outer limits of AGF I'm suggesting to Fsushilcom that they place their defence on their own talkpage, since they can't do it here, what with being blocked. Tonywalton Talk 00:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if he weren't a sock, he's still wrong, as he's trying to restrict the definition to its "traditional" meaning, in defiance of consensus and, more importantly, reliable sources that tell us the legal definition of marriage includes same-sex partners in some parts of the world. To that purpose, I've asked for the article to be semi'd for a couple of weeks, although I have a hunch that's been tried before. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I see the vandalism on Marriage has recurred immediately following the expiry of a 1-month-long semiprotection on that article. I've reinstated semiprotection on Marriage for a period of 1 month. Tonywalton Talk 02:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by —  Dæ dαlus Contribs 00:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

CU is required as obviously a hardblock on their IP does nothing. This is to check to see if a potential rangeblock is possible, and if there are any sleepers.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 00:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Main account indeffed. Tim Song (talk) 05:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * to check for a possible IP block. Tim Song (talk) 05:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, obviously. He's editing from a school, so not much I can do wrt socks. There's quite a few legit edits from it too, so I'm reluctant to block. J.delanoy gabs adds  20:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Daedalus969
Same MO as master who has been confirmed to have socked before. Please bag and tag per WP:DUCK.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 06:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by —  Dæ dαlus Contribs 06:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

CU isn't needed to confirm this obvious sock. CU is needed to determine if a rangeblock is at all possible.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 06:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

As J.delanoy did the last CU two weeks ago, I've asked him to comment on this case. Auntie E. (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No other sleepers found. Rangeblocked another range, and extended an existing block for three months.  J.delanoy gabs adds  03:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)