Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser | IP check
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Luna Santin (talk | contribs) at 21:51, 13 August 2008 (old cases to archive). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Checkuser pages
Requests: Unlisted • IP check • On hold
Archives: Main • Older • IP checks • Unsorted
Clerk pages
Clerk Overview • Noticeboard • Procedures
Shortcut
This page can be quickly accessed through:
WP:RFCU/IP/A

Requests for IP check

This page lists requests to identify and block the IP addresses behind attack and vandal accounts that were previously listed at Requests for checkuser/IP check. After the account has been reported as blocked or declined by the checkusers, the report is moved here for seven days (most recent sections at the bottom), after which it is deleted. Because there is no attempt to establish a relationship with a puppetmaster account, no separate archive is kept, other than the page history.

Clerks: when clearing this page, please make note of the names of the sections you are deleting in the edit summary.


Random username vandal

The random username vandal goes on template tagging sprees. Hopefully this is a one off incident, but I'll leave this here in case problems continue. If they do, hopefully the underlying range is small. Spellcast (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check for collateral damage

For over a month now, I've been dealing with this persistent vandal who keeps adding bogus info into certain film/TV related articles, and he operates from those two ranges I've listed above. I have made an AN/I report about it, and an admin is afraid of blocking the ranges without knowing whether it will cause collateral damage or not. We would like a CheckUser to be done on these ranges to know if it will cause any collateral damage or not, and whether they should be blocked or not. --AAA! (AAAA) 20:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • They are extremely active ranges. You could try blocking anonymous editors only, but allow account creation; if the vandal creates accounts that will help us track down his activities. A hard block would cause a lot of problems. Thatcher 21:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Started this before Thatcher posted, so it's possibly moot, but I'm posting it anyway in case it later becomes relevant. Here's a partial list of apparently involved IP addresses, judging from the AN/I thread:
  1. 69.19.14.39 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  2. 69.19.14.17 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  3. 69.19.14.15 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  4. 69.19.14.36 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  5. 69.19.14.19 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  6. 69.19.14.24 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  7. 69.19.14.44 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  8. 69.19.14.34 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  9. 69.19.14.31 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Particularly egregious userpage vandalism
  1. 66.82.9.74 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  2. 66.82.9.77 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  3. 66.82.9.62 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  4. 66.82.9.61 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  5. 66.82.9.92 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  6. 66.82.9.81 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  7. 66.82.9.55 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  8. 66.82.9.53 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  9. 66.82.9.110 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  10. 66.82.9.104 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  11. 66.82.9.103 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  12. 66.82.9.108 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
IPs were collected from AAA's contribs, so apart from sorting them into the two ranges, most recent IPs will be listed first. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to Rjd0060 on IRC, the ranges that those IPs are covered in are actually the following ranges:
rather than the two ranges I originally mentioned. --AAA! (AAAA) 16:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could we still do those range blocks, providing we have both anon users only and account creation enabled? --AAA! (AAAA) 17:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked both ranges, but I have allowed account creation on them both. AAA, if you happen to see a similar pattern of vandalism to those types of articles, let a checkuser know. (be sure you have lots of evidence, as in several days worth showing the pattern). No existing accounts will be affected by the block. —— nixeagle 17:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Harold Hreem

Persistent, irritating vandal who keeps creating new accounts in order to make edits like these: [1] [2] [3]

Reyk YO! 10:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are similar to others in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Primetime. --Snigbrook (talk) 11:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While it's not Primetime, far as I can see, it's hard to block IPs or ranges here, as they cover a large range of IPs. They're pretty-much all over the place - Alison ❤ 07:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ShiningPath

ShiningPath is an SPA, appears to have assimilated WP conventions instantly, then disappeared after having removed links s/he didn't like from several hundred pages. Can this user be checked as a possible sockpuppet? Thank you, Badagnani (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Request reformatted. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no Declined - fishing expedition[4] with no evidence whatsoever. Has there actually been any abuse here you can point to? - Alison ❤ 08:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The edits were questionable and it seems likely that this is a longtime editor who did not want any repercussions for his/her removals of websites from many dozens, or hundreds of articles. Most importantly, I was under the impression that it's not permissible to have multiple registered accounts, whether or not the editor believes it's justifiable. Badagnani (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SOCK, you actually can, but it's in your best interests to declare the links. Deliberately avoiding scrutiny while being disruptive is a no-no, but I'm not seeing that here - Alison ❤ 19:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the response depends on who the main account is (if there is one). If the user is blocked or has a long block log and a reputation for acting contentiously, then it might be acceptable to disclose the main account. If the user is in good standing, then there may be no reason to declare the other name; on the other hand, the SPA has given up the ability to comment meaningfully on the issue when editors restore the links. So I checked; there is nothing obvious. This is a textbook case of fish CheckUser is not for fishing. The question "Who is X" is often much harder to answer than, "Is X related to Y." Here, nothing stands out. Thatcher 20:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/IP_check/Archive&oldid=231769273"