Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qwertgb/Archive

Report date May 5 2009, 14:54 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Nathan  T (formerly Avruch)

All three users seem to be enjoying marking editors as sockpuppets of. Is there a common IP they share or a small, quiet range, and if so can you shut it down for a bit? -  Jeremy  ( v^_^v Cardmaker ) 19:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Added some more recent confirmed socks. See also Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Qwertgb. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Zzuuzz -  Jeremy  ( v^_^v Cardmaker ) 19:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not a CU and I do not play one on television, however I am quite familiar with Qwertgb. After reviewing the edits of the eleven accounts listed above, I can confirm that all match his modus operandi, and have been tagged as socks.  — Kralizec! (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just blocked another one. DMacks (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly, it's Qwertgb, accounts created every couple of minutes around 0800 today.  Acroterion  (talk)  20:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So a hardblock of the underlying IP and any obvious Qwertgb socks on it is not reasonable? -  Jeremy  ( v^_^v Cardmaker ) 21:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems eminently reasonable to me; just pointing out the obvious correlation. He seems to have stopped for an early dinner now, or run out of socks.  Acroterion  (talk)  21:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected on that last point.   Acroterion  (talk)  21:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to make an AF on what he's been doing? -  Jeremy  ( v^_^v Cardmaker ) 21:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * AF? You lost me, I only grok TLAs.  Acroterion  (talk)  22:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a bit varied for WP:AF but probably possible. A range block should probably be considered first, imo. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Without getting too BEANSy, rangeblocks have been of limited utility in the past (feel free to email me for details). I guess we will just have to wait and see what the CU pixie dust comes up with.  — Kralizec! (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd try the CU route first. I'm opposed to writing lots of filters unless other means have failed, given the load imposed by the process. If we can't enforce a rangeblock, then a filter's the way to go, since there seem to be some predictable characteristics.  Acroterion  (talk)  00:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Nathan  T (formerly Avruch) 14:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * for checkuser attention. Nathan  T (formerly Avruch) 14:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Moved to case subpage from quick case request. Nathan  T (formerly Avruch) 14:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Several IPs hardblocked. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * ✅ the following:


 *  Syn  ergy 05:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)