Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SimpsonsFan08
| request links: main • edit • links • history • watch Filed: 23:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC) |
- SimpsonsFan08 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- SimpsonsFan2008 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- MrWP (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- SimsFan (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Doughnuts...Mmm! (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Code letter: F
- Supporting evidence: See One, Two, and Three. I'm submitting this following a discussion with Rlevse about the continuous flow of sockpuppets. I'm requesting that a rangeblock be applied to include the underlying IPs, assuming the collateral damage is minimal. The reason I believe checkuser is justified in this case is because there is no end in sight to the abusive sockpuppeteering. Every time a sockpuppet is outed by User:EJF or myself (and then blocked), another one appears. Enigma message 23:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Clerk note: I endorse this request. As soon as his socks are blocked, he makes new ones. Pls block underlying IPs too. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Confirmed these are the same user. Also Grandoldman (talk · contribs). The range is too big and dynamic to block. Thatcher 03:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- So we're stuck, basically. Unfortunate, because the socks keep flying in. Enigma message 04:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)