Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Grazon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you are creating a new request about this user, please add it to the top of the page, above this notice. Don't forget to add
{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Grazon}}
to the checkuser page here. Previous requests (shown below), and this box, will be automatically hidden on Requests for checkuser (but will still appear here).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Grazon

  • Code letter: C and Unlisted: (Sock-puppet to dilute policy violations to above community ban)

I started a RFC recently to find out if I alone in seeing a disruptive pattern to a user's edits. Well, I received a fair amount of support from well respected users. Devilmaycares (talk contribs) has already been blocked from editing once and has been warned with nearly every template out there.

In the course of the RFC I was made aware of another editors suspicions that this user was a sock puppet of User:Grazon. With less then 300 edits under his belt he did seem to have a strange amount of knowledge of the ins/outs of wikipedia. So I investigated further.

My first step was to compare the edit histories of both accounts. One of the first things I noticed was that these two accounts never edited the same articles, except for one exception. Seeing as both accounts edited similar types of articles that seemed very odd.

The next thing I looked at was what days of the week did they edit most often in the month of October. Well, they both seemed to favor the end of the week, but that might not mean anything.

The second to last thing I checked took a bit of extra effort. I found days where both accounts had edited on the same day and I noticed something interesting: A clear pattern of switching between accounts can be seen. If these were different people then it would stand to reason that the "editing sessions" would overlap, or be in very different time periods, right? The edit histories showed a something very suspicious. The account would switch off editing and often with 2-5 min in between. Not just once... a ton of times. See my evidence if you wish to confirm it for yourself.

Now, with renewed confidence I checked one last thing... block logs. I noticed something interesting... when Grazon was blocked Devilmaycares would suddenly start editing. This has happened three times. (Compare the Grazon's block log to Devil's contributions for those days.)

Blocks/Block avoidance
  • 20:32, 6 October 2006 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) blocked "Grazon (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3rr on Foley)
    • 04:53, 7 October 2006 [1]
    • 05:02, 7 October 2006 [2]
  • 04:02, 19 October 2005 Splash (Talk | contribs) blocked "Grazon (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3rr violation on George W. Bush)
    • 04:04 19 October [3]
    • 04:10 19 October [4]
  • 06:51, 20 October 2005 Carnildo (Talk | contribs) blocked "Grazon (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Vandalism)
    • 06:57 20 October- [5]
    • 07:01 20 October - [6]
POV Pushing
Incivility
  • [25] Edit Summary: "take a logic and critical thinking class it might help you"
  • [26] - Edit Summary: "u obviously don't know what you're talking about. try editing there some time"
  • [27] - Edit Summary: "piss off anon"
  • [28] - Edit Summary: "who the hell are u?"
  • [29] - Edit Summary: "ok we need an honnest person here"
  • [30] - Edit Summary: "*bronx cheer*" (see Bronx cheer)
  • [31] - Comment: "I seem to attract assholes..."
  • [32] - Comment: "wow how cute I have a stalker." - Response to being notified of these proceedings.
  • [33] Article Edit: Added "Wikipedians" under the see-also section of nerd.
Copyright Violation


Ummmm is there any other I can provide? ---J.S (t|c) 04:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed. Dmcdevit·t 06:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent requests related to this user should be made
above, in a new section.