Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zooombabby/Archive

Report date March 19 2009, 04:21 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum

Zooombabby made roughly 40 nonsensical edits to Camille Paglia (randomly changing words to nonsense, such as changing "February" to read "Fern"). I gave him a vandalism4im (several editors had been reverting him and one posted a warning). I reverted all the vandalism. Now Delayblind300 reverted my revert and continued on making nonsense edits. Obviously this is the same person. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 04:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * Both blocked per WP:ENC.  MBisanz  talk 06:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Report date March 24 2009, 18:29 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum

Previous sockpuppet investigation for Zooombabby and Delayblind300 was made at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zooombabby/Archive and both were blocked. Now Veryneverglunk is making the exact same nonsense edits to Camille Paglia (7 edits, each with multiple random edits). I'm requesting, therefore, that a checkuser be done on all three accounts and that an IP block occur -- it is obvious that this user intends to continue vandalizing using multiple sockpuppets. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 18:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 18:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * to confirm this one, two previous accounts and to check for possible sleepers (just to make sure). I'm not sure if a block on the underlying ip is needed yet.  Syn  ergy 19:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Veryneverglunk matches the others, and since collateral looks to be at a minimum. –  Luna Santin  (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

 Syn  ergy 20:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date March 25 2009, 17:11 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum

Same nonesense edits to Camille Paglia. This is the fourth sockpuppet doing these eids -- three previous accounts were blocked which shared the same IP which also was blocked. I now request that this fourth reincarnation be blocked along with its IP -- he has apparently found another IP (either through a different IP account or has a variable IP, so a range block may be in order) and intends to continue his game of vandalizing. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 17:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 17:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * sock blocked indef, a clerk can tag it whenever they feel like it. ——  nix eagle email me 17:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Previous result was that the ip was blocked. I'd like to figure out if the block has expired, or a rangeblock is needed to curb the accounts, and the possibility that there are more accounts (sleepers) ready to edit.  Syn  ergy 17:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Was a different IP, blocked by another CU since it was last used. ✅ matches from this bunch include:
 * Apologies for the miss, earlier. – Luna Santin  (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All accounts blocked and tagged. —  Jake   Wartenberg  02:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the miss, earlier. – Luna Santin  (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All accounts blocked and tagged. —  Jake   Wartenberg  02:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the miss, earlier. – Luna Santin  (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All accounts blocked and tagged. —  Jake   Wartenberg  02:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the miss, earlier. – Luna Santin  (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All accounts blocked and tagged. —  Jake   Wartenberg  02:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the miss, earlier. – Luna Santin  (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All accounts blocked and tagged. —  Jake   Wartenberg  02:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the miss, earlier. – Luna Santin  (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All accounts blocked and tagged. —  Jake   Wartenberg  02:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the miss, earlier. – Luna Santin  (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All accounts blocked and tagged. —  Jake   Wartenberg  02:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the miss, earlier. – Luna Santin  (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All accounts blocked and tagged. —  Jake   Wartenberg  02:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the miss, earlier. – Luna Santin  (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All accounts blocked and tagged. —  Jake   Wartenberg  02:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions