Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Xenubox

[edit] Xenubox

• Xenubox (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

• VolcanoXeni (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

• Code letters: F, C

• Possibly: A

*Remotely possible: B

Essentially I think somebody is creating flaming vandal puppets either to vent their frustration at Scientology or less likely, is a Scientologist playing some kind of false flag game. These accounts share similar purposes and surprisingly savvy Wikiusage.
Both accounts contributions are far below 50 (closer to 25), so I'm basically presenting them all as evidence.

With Xenubox I noted a dedicated vandalism pattern, punctuated when taking the entire history into account by an odd first post.
diff {{usertalk}}

All subsequent posts were identical to this:
diff which I should also mention, all use edit summaries.

• New editors, like myself in January, tend to be pretty lax about this when editing on the whole page level where an edit summary isn't autogenerated.
• As in this case of a new editor posting to what looks like his biography and not including an edit summary.

His edit count on Interiot's tool shows a solid red line, contrasted to the green line on Xenubox's count it shows behavior consistent with an established user.

Going back to VolcanoXeni, this account seemed to be more of an attack type (given the talk page posts). I saw that this person also had an understanding of how Wikipedia is used technically, but with some rough edges. For example their edit summary usage wasn't as perfect as Xenubox, but since VolcanoXeni was active in April and Xenubox is new it seems plausible that whoever is behind them has also become "better" in that time also.

I'm sort of afraid I'm going to be outing an editor I may be friendly with by doing this, but the behavior shown by these WP:SPAs is not acceptable. Anynobody 10:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser is not for fishing What's more, code F requires "link to block log of original account"; code C requires diffs of the "ongoing, serious pattern vandalism involving dozens of edits". And furthermore, VolcanoXeni is stale. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

jpgordon I'm not fishing, and the staleness of VolcanoXeni goes to prove my point; someone is creating throw away accounts to create havoc just often enough to stay "stale". What's more, you seem to be contradicting yourself, 1 September 2007 you said: *It's not really necessary to know the "master account"; if sockpuppeting is happening, the "master" and the "slaves" often get treated identically, though we'll sometimes keep exactly one of them unblocked if the offenses aren't too egregious, or if we're caught in a charitable mood.

If I'm right the person behind the socks is responsible for 14 vandal edits
[1] - [2] - [3] - [4] - [5] - [6] - [7] - [8] - [9] - This was on the day's featured article - [10] - [11] - [12] - [13]
and 6 PA edits
[14] - [15] - [16] - [17] - [18] - [19]
In two incidents, are you saying we have to wait for more to happen before any investigation can be done? Or by "dozens" does it literally mean two dozens (24)? Anynobody 02:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Feel free to relist; if you'd provided the information required in the first place, it might have been accepted, and a relist might be accepted by another checkuser operator who you haven't pissed off. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, I did list this information by stating I'm presenting their entire edit histories. Since I'm discussing throwaway vandal/attack accounts I assumed that checkusers would have been aware that such accounts don't last very long. I don't mean to appear lazy, but as I said I'm talking about 25 edits total which seemed kind of excessive to list diff by diff here when there is an easier way for everyone to see what I'm talking about.
VolcanoXeni (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser) <contributions>
Xenubox (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

I don't want to waste anyone's time, so before I re-list it would you mind giving me your opinion: do you think there is anything to my theory? If it looks like two separate occurrences of different people to you, I'd give re-listing it even more thought before doing so. Anynobody 23:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)