Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Societyfinalclubs

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/Societyfinalclubs}}
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] Societyfinalclubs

main edit links history watch
Filed: 18:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Frienlifer and Schooldoc appear to be single-purpose sock puppets. Justinm1978 (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I see someone beat me to filing this. Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Societyfinalclubs for a lot more justification. This appears to be an ongoing problem at that article, and I believe there are more socks than are listed here. Since they are creating socks that argue with each other, the situation at that article is confusing. I'm hoping a Checkuser on the listed accounts will uncover more socks. --barneca (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Confirmed:
There is a strong history of serial hoaxing and vote stacking on related AFDs. The range 65.141.156.0/23 has been blocked for six months. All accounts blocked and tagged. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Concerns These accounts were created using shared IPs from a public libray system. Mctrain is one account that has been lumped into this category of problematic users by mistake. I have notified all public users to start accounts on their own PCs. Please keep all suspect accounts closed, including Mctrain. Mctrain will open a new account on his own PC. Thank you very muchGeniejargon (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Confirmed And another... I missed this guy last time. Sam Korn (smoddy) 00:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Moving this back into "outstanding requests," as another probable Mctrain sock has popped up, blanking information on talk pages:

—Deor (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Confirmed and the range 65.142.236.0/24 blocked for six months. Sam Korn (smoddy) 13:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sam, you may be creating much collateral damage here. Blocks of ranged Ip's can just indicate a particular internet provider, particular corporation, library stytem as well as a geographical region within the U.S. Many of these accounts here have no record of even editing collegiate subject matter. It is also bad policy to just blindly accuse an account because of a range of Ip's in question, half of the time also blocking their own talk pages-I have to disagree with what I see here. Be very careful with your blocking practices. Don't go off on a power trip.207.63.134.98 (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, look at the subject matter of this IP's deleted contributions. Blocking (just this one, I don't know anything about range blocks...) --barneca (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
And, to be less flippant, I've gone through all of the accounts listed above yesterday in some detail, and all of them have sufficiently overlapping interests that I am extremely confident that they are all one person, even without Sam's checkuser work. This IP's next edit confirms who they are. --barneca (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Just for the sake of reassurance, there are no edits from any of the blocked ranges that are not connected with this user. I have reduced the block length of this user to one month, as there are many productive edits from the range. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, OK, I was just matching your block length on the other ranges, but I now understand this one's different. And since I haven't said it already, thanks for looking into all this. --barneca (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't see why some accounts that have positive contributions should be lumped in with those that do not and that don't have similar editing habits. That does not make sense?. They don't all have overlap- I went through them, and some have a very substantial history of positive collaboration- not buying it. Seems to be a public shared system possibly a college, that some may be back checking what people before them were editing and then playing games with that. No one is going to have such diverse editing habits and be so knowledgable with so many fields. It must be a public university system with some legitmate users and nons.
This is 207.63.134.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Who is also blocked for a month. Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I came across this, and I have to put my two cents in. First, you ban a collection of users with honest contributions based on a "hunch" because of similar ranges. Then, you block the guy above because he doesn't agree with you, and is not even in the range, so he only get's a one-month block. Now, I'm curious what you will do with my two cents- It will be just proof that Wikipedia administrators get off on this sort of thing-that's all. I have seen all this finger pointing before by Wikipedia, it is very unprofessional!207.63.134.34 (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Ok, all that you have discovered is a large range of IP' that pertain to a particular service and or locale, that are completely unrelated- that is it, and as you can see from my contributions, I have never edited once any of the topics that you "deem" suspect. Blocking is completely unjustified- blocking should only be based on vandalism and nothing more, unprofessional administrators are causing more problem's on Wikipedia than anyone else, period!207.63.134.34 (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Now, I do research about schools in Illinois, and I found this "sockpuppet" tag on the talk page while doing research for O.A Thorp Academy. I will go on that talk page and mark it as clean, as the page requests to do so by a knowing person, so people do not get hung up with this foolishness.207.63.134.34 (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2008 (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.