Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zealking/Archive

Evidence submitted by Tnxman307
Per this discussion, there seems to be a pretty active vandal creating accounts willy-nilly. Requesting CU to check for sleepers and the possibility of an underlying IP block. TN X Man 13:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

 * Added all I could find. All blocked.  NawlinWiki (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I also have a hunch that this is the same vandal as User:Lila Cheney 336. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks more like User:Hamish Ross. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 16:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's confirmed, then. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 17:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by TN X Man  13:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC) for a sleeper check and an underlying IP block, if possible. Thanks, SpitfireTally-ho! 13:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I note that User:Gzeereaalt has not yet been blocked (and also appears to have no contributions, though they might be deleted; I wouldn't be able to tell). Is this intentional? -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 15:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, misspelled it. It's User:Gzereaalt.  Will fix it in list.  NawlinWiki (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Guess he's reading this page -- see last entry. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

--Deskana (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I'll refrain from tagging all these guys, per WP:DENY, of course (note that some new accounts may crop up for a while, they can just be blocked). SpitfireTally-ho! 19:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I have also altered filter 316 which was tracking this ongoing pattern, as well, to reduce false positives. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 19:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by NawlinWiki
Vandalism continued immediately after first CU was closed. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by NawlinWiki (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

IP check, please. SpitfireTally-ho! 20:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I have corrected a bug in the related filter. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 20:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ No uncaught sleepers, another rangeblock implemented. -- Avi (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Report date April 23 2010, 21:55 (UTC)
Recently created names are committing nearly identical vandalism within a short timeframe of each other, mostly by adding two exclamation points after the name of the article's subject Sheeana Talk 21:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Suspected sockpuppets
 * Evidence submitted by Sheeana Talk
 * Evidence submitted by Sheeana Talk
 * Evidence submitted by Sheeana Talk
 * Evidence submitted by Sheeana Talk
 * Evidence submitted by Sheeana Talk
 * Evidence submitted by <font style="color:#7a1a3a">Sheeana <font style="color:57697f">Talk
 * Evidence submitted by <font style="color:#7a1a3a">Sheeana <font style="color:57697f">Talk
 * Evidence submitted by <font style="color:#7a1a3a">Sheeana <font style="color:57697f">Talk
 * Evidence submitted by <font style="color:#7a1a3a">Sheeana <font style="color:57697f">Talk
 * Evidence submitted by <font style="color:#7a1a3a">Sheeana <font style="color:57697f">Talk
 * Evidence submitted by <font style="color:#7a1a3a">Sheeana <font style="color:57697f">Talk
 * Evidence submitted by <font style="color:#7a1a3a">Sheeana <font style="color:57697f">Talk
 * Evidence submitted by <font style="color:#7a1a3a">Sheeana <font style="color:57697f">Talk

Example diffs:     <font style="color:#7a1a3a">Sheeana  <font style="color:57697f">Talk 21:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I added, , , and two others. Whoever is creating these has now started using "!^", "!*", or (most recently) " ! " to get around the filter. NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 04:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC) I have added another one. -- B s a d o w s k i 1   06:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Groan. Please move this to WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Zealking. Hopefully there's another rangeblock that will end this. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 22:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Also, Kingzeele isn't registered. Did you get the right spelling? TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  22:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, typo - thanks! I'll close this and combine it with the other report. <font style="color:#7a1a3a">Sheeana  <font style="color:57697f">Talk 22:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * moved from Sockpuppet investigations/Maddzeal, original page history can be found there. SpitfireTally-ho! 22:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

self-endorsed for a sleeper check and range block, please, SpitfireTally-ho! 22:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ all of the above plus . I've applied a rangeblock for now. Risker (talk) 05:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Mr.zesty, Somethingoutoftheordinary, CornmealZeal, and ZealMeal. Blocked another IP range. Dominic·t 06:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

CornmealZeal blocked. Not tagging any of the socks since it seems we are going with DENY here. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>  ( Talk ) 11:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Elockid
Fresh new "Zeal" vandalism only accounts making subtle changes to articles like all the other Zeal vandals. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>  ( Talk ) 01:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Wow. I had no idea there were that many. I recently updated with a small change that helped catch Zealking7432, but this guy looks pretty determined.  — Soap  —  01:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Another new account,, was just created and has started vandalizing.    —  Soap  —  01:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Added  Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 02:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And  Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 02:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And  Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 02:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Could we set up a temporary edit filter to stop him, or would that take to much effort? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a filter monitoring him; that's how I'm picking up the names. I'm working on tightening it down but until then I can't put it to disallow; there's too many false positives. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 02:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>  ( Talk ) 01:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Self endorsing for another rangeblock please. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>  ( Talk ) 01:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Note to the checkuser: This might be Mascotguy, due to the use of "zeal" in everything. A check of the IPs of Mascot might yield an overlap in theory. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The most recent addition, User:Sir sandwich, fits the pattern of MG, so this may have some merit. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 02:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've blocked a pile of Tor nodes, which all of these have been on. --jpgordon:==( o ) 05:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am investigating using the tor exit node detection capability within the related filter (which I have never used before, so it will take some testing before it's finalized) -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 05:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, one more clarification: there's no range to block. --jpgordon:==( o ) 06:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Summarily closing and archiving, as there's not much more to do here. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 06:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * , not blocked but appeared at around the same time as Wikizealking.
 * , not blocked but appeared at around the same time as Wikizealking.
 * , not blocked but appeared at around the same time as Wikizealking.
 * , not blocked but appeared at around the same time as Wikizealking.
 * , not blocked but appeared at around the same time as Wikizealking.

Evidence submitted by Shirik
Typical pattern of adding random exclamation points with username including "Zeal" -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 07:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Note: Most of the names on Filter 316 that occur more than once are him. Those that just have one hit are generally false positives that are for the most part unavoidable since the filter's code is so broad (I would make it log only instead of tagging, but I think someone else might have set it this way on purpose to make it more visible even at the risk of tagging false positives).  — Soap  —  13:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note this filter has been disabled for now due to the false positives so we will need another method of tracking him.  —  Soap  —  13:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you think it could go to log only? It's turning up a dozen false positives every day and Im not sure that all those people who get tags for legitimate edits will understand the reason.  I would have done so myself but as I said above I dont like to undo other people's filter changes unless it;s extremely uncontroversial.  —  Soap  —  14:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Deskana (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 07:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Self endorsed to see if this is a case of more tor nodes that need to be blocked. If this is the case, perhaps we should investigate into why prockseebot isn't handling this. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 07:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I've put a note on filter 316 indicating that it shouldn't be disabled without asking for my permission. --Deskana (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

--Deskana (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

/ per addition of SpitfireTally-ho! 14:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

--Deskana (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Elockid
Fresh new sock with the same MO. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>  ( Talk ) 15:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>  ( Talk ) 15:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Still no signs of slowing down. Looks like more Tor nodes need to be blocked. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>  ( Talk ) 15:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You can stop listing these. I'm tracking them myself. By all means, continue blocking them, as that's extremely helpful, but you don't need to list them here for me to act on them. A clerk can close this case. --Deskana (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Shirik
I hate to bring this up again, but it appears the fix to the TorBlock extension was insufficient to stop this vandal. Typical pattern is still being followed; "zeal" in the username with trivial edits including exclamation points. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 16:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 16:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Self endorsed for CU to see if this is still a case of tor nodes not being blocked or if perhaps we now have a possible rangeblock, etc. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 16:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Still Tor. No range to block. --jpgordon:==( o ) 16:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * All taken care of. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  16:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by JamesBWatson
I originally started a new SPI at Sockpuppet investigations/Xealking, before realising that there was already an extensive list of investigations under Zealking. On the basis of what I have read at Sockpuppet investigations/Zealking/Archive perhaps there is little to do beyond blocking each account, which has been done. However, I thought I might as well make a report here so that all the information is available together. Typical examples of edits by this batch of sockpuppets are, , ,. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Marking as closed. This is already being actively monitored by several admins. –MuZemike 18:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Report date May 12 2010, 10:44 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

The above are blatantly the same person, but I'd like a check for any sleepers if possible and an IP block would be nice. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   10:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   10:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

and adding a whole bunch of other socks above. (There are even more that are now blocked that are not listed above.) Underlying IP/ranges need to be checked as well as any missed sleepers. –MuZemike 15:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The MO of these users seem to match Zealking especially the recent wave of zeals. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>  ( Talk ) 19:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Sockpuppet investigations/Tangerinepeel merged/redirected to here with the socks listed there added above. –MuZemike 15:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Found a couple more; they're all the king of zeel. It's a /16 in a major metropolitan area with lots of non-vandal anonymous edits. --jpgordon:==( o ) 22:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by N5iln
Ongoing vandalism in the style of User:Zealking,User:Captain Fervor and others. Diffs: ,,, many others. --Alan (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * Already indef'd as a blatant sock and a vandlism-only account even if it weren't. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * As well as the others from the recent reports today.
 * As well as the others from the recent reports today.
 * As well as the others from the recent reports today.
 * As well as the others from the recent reports today.
 * As well as the others from the recent reports today.
 * As well as the others from the recent reports today.
 * As well as the others from the recent reports today.
 * As well as the others from the recent reports today.
 * As well as the others from the recent reports today.
 * As well as the others from the recent reports today.

Evidence submitted by Shirik
Fits the obvious naming pattern, all contributions with an exclamation point, etc.

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
You may want to add User:FerventCowboyKiller to the list. Self declares "AKA ZEALKING!" Nb. already blocked for vandalism, see Special:Contributions/FerventCowboyKiller. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 06:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Is a filter to detect the addition of an exclamation mark just after the subject possible? No legitimate edit should add an exclamation mark just after the subject of an article. NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 19:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've already brought this up on Wikipedia talk:Edit filter. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>  ( Talk ) 21:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have the filter already, but he's working around it by adding spaces, commented-out "galleries", using lookalike characters such as ‼, etc., all of which can also be added to the filter, but generally only after he's used a particular strategy enough to be detectable.  — Soap  —  23:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 16:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Reopening an RFCU here, self-endorsed. I'm asking if we can reconsider the rangeblock discussed earlier. Obviously I can't see the IP, etc., so I don't know how convincing the "no" answer was, but perhaps we can deal with this via several small blocks rather than one large block, or maybe the collateral damage isn't too too bad and we can deal with that via account creation. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 16:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd second that, if nobody minds me sticking my nose in. Every time we block one of these accounts, another one pops up. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Are they doing any real damage, or just being annoying? --jpgordon:==( o ) 17:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The amount of vandalism done by this user does cause significant "real damage", because of the time we waste on it when we could be doing other work, so that other useful work is left undone. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I've blocked the relevant /20 for a couple weeks; hopefully that will work for a bit. --jpgordon:==( o ) 18:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the other relevant /20. I'll keep whacking as they pop up. Boring brat... --jpgordon:==( o ) 19:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

and both blocked. For anybody aware of this case, please immediately report them to AIV if they are spotted. Thanks. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>  ( Talk ) 14:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * likewise for  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Rage blocked by Jpgordon and every account that turned up on that range is blocked. Brandon (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

We got another one:. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>  ( Talk ) 21:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

to check. Can we please also get another rangeblock for these socks (this one actually circumvented detection),,  and a sleeper check. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>  ( Talk ) 22:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A couple more blocked:, , , , . <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>  ( Talk ) 23:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Some more:, , . <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>  ( Talk ) 22:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My gut tells me that Jawzzest may be a coincidence, unless he's keeping it as a sleeper to get it autoconfirmed- the rest of the socks seem to g out of their way to cause disruption from the moment of the account's creation to the moment they're indef'd. However, it would be nice if we could explore the possibility of another range block. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It could be. But, he/she creates 2+ creates accounts at a time. When one gets blocked, the others don't edit at all. My guess is that they get autoblocked and he/she moves on to a new account when they get a new IP. Like with Gnikleaz1 with and Gnikleaz3. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>  ( Talk ) 23:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Could be. There's just something about it- it doesn't really fit the pattern. I'd be interested to know the outcome of a CU. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Another couple of /20s blocked. Jawzzest seems a coinkydink. --jpgordon:==( o ) 01:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Every other listed account is blocked. Not much more we can do. Until next time. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>  ( Talk ) 01:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Andewz111
Possible this guy might be Zealking. One edit I found had "Zeal" in it in article space, and it feels like the Zeal. One reverted diff. Puffy (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Now blocked, but a CU for sleepers please. Puffy (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Puffy (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

–MuZemike 23:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * More of these? This is getting boring! Could a CU investigate the possibility of yet another range block if possible, please? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd love to, but these were all on Tor nodes (which I've now blocked.) Is something not working that used to be (regarding Tor?) --jpgordon:==( o ) 03:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently the MediaWiki extension on Tor nodes is not working again, as said on my talk page. –MuZemike 03:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The BRFA for TorNodeBot needs to be opened again. Great idea for a bot. Puffy fish penguins 04:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Elockid
Same MO as the others. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>  ( Talk ) 04:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>  ( Talk ) 04:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

for a sleeper check and if possible to block whatever Tor they are editing from. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>  ( Talk ) 04:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, plus Superkingzeal. IP range blocked (it's not Tor). Dominic·t 08:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Serial vandal/sock. Not going to bother tagging. –MuZemike 08:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Elockid
Same MO as the other accounts. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>  ( Talk ) 11:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>  ( Talk ) 11:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

for a sleeper check and if possible a rangeblock or Tor block. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>  ( Talk ) 11:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Six blocked Tor nodes, one additional account. --jpgordon:==( o ) 16:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Elockid
The usual MO. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>  ( Talk ) 04:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>  ( Talk ) 03:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

for a sleeper check and if possible a Tor or IP block. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>  ( Talk ) 04:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Also, . - blocked a few nodes.  J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  04:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Elockid
The usual MO. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>  ( Talk ) 04:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>  ( Talk ) 04:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

sleeper check. Also tor and IP block if possible. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>  ( Talk ) 04:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Proxies blocked. Dominic·t 06:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Gogo Dodo
Account blocked per WP:DUCK. Requesting CU for sleeper check and block of underlying netblock. Several netblocks in use by Zealking were blocked on Sept. 12th by two CUs. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
for a sleeper check. <b style="color:#4682B4; font-family:Calibri; font-size:16px;"> E lockid (Alternate)</b>  ( Talk )  13:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I found one other sleeper, which I blocked. However, checking that range, those were the only two that turned up. I don't feel comfortable blocking that range quite yet, but if the disruption continues, please let me know (or refile). TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  14:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * All blocked, nothing left to do. -- DQ.alt (t)  (e)   17:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

25 November 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Same MO. Need a sleeper check. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 18:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
but not for a sleeper check (such a request would probably not find anything given the nature of the editor's editing). Instead, I'd like to see if there are open proxies that need to be blocked or if these were tor nodes. If the former, they should be blocked directly. If the latter, this is relevant to an open BRFA. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 18:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Forgot about that. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 18:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No sleepers or Tor nodes that I can see. Someone else has blocked the IP. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  03:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Closing. <font color="#C50">Nakon 04:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)