Trichome

thcscience_admin


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/Verdict}}
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.

Verdict[edit]

  • Code letter: F (See below for details)

White Tyson and Hippiodude are confirmed sockpuppets of each other. Question has been raised as to whether this is Verdict back again. The user shows some similarities; lack of understanding of image copyright and WP:IUP, fixation on Brock Lesnar. However, the edits don't follow the general pattern of Verdict socks. Original ban discussion took place here. Verdict edits from a specific ISP (can be disclosed if this information is no longer in the logs) but I believe that is still blocked. More often, he uses open proxies. --Yamla 22:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed. Voice-of-All 21:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Verdict[edit]

  • Code letter: F (See below for details)

Request blocking (but not identification) of open proxies used by above confirmed sockpuppet account. Also, disclosure of any other sleeper accounts. Note that the account, Erisch, is definitely a Verdict sock. Original ban discussion took place here. --Yamla 23:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 IP blocked. Mackensen (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Verdict[edit]

Editing pattern of several of these users conforms to verdict. Likely several of them are. Please confirm if each user is indeed a sock, so that we can see who to block. The Evil Spartan 16:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original ban discussion took place here. Note that I do not believe Wikidudeman is a sock but I could be wrong and I'm not the one who requested this checkuser. --Yamla 17:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er, yeah, bad call on my part for wikidudeman. In any case, like I said, several are borderline cases: but they are spa's used to editing the same talk

page. The Evil Spartan 17:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rekatj2 is  Confirmed. The rest are Red X Unrelated. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict[edit]

  • Code letter: F (See below for details)
Request blocking (but not identification) of open proxies used by above confirmed sockpuppet account. Also, disclosure of any other sleeper accounts. Original ban discussion took place here. --Yamla 20:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adding another confirmed sockpuppet. --Yamla 15:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And another one. --Yamla 20:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 IP blocked Voice-of-All 02:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict[edit]

  • Code letter: F (See below for details)

Verdict back within hours. Request blocking (but not identification) of open proxies used by the above abusive sockpuppet accounts. Also, disclosure of any other sleeper accounts. Original ban discussion took place here. --Yamla 20:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 IP blocked. Dmcdevit·t 23:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict[edit]

  • Code letter: F (See below for details)

Banned sockpuppeteer (well over 100 sockpuppet accounts). Request blocking (but not identification) of open proxies used by the above abusive sockpuppet accounts. Also, disclosure of any other sleeper accounts. Original ban discussion took place here. --Yamla 17:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added another confirmed abusive sockpuppet. --Yamla 20:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And another. We need to shut down this open proxy. --Yamla 20:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 IP blocked Some open proxiesVoice-of-All 22:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict[edit]

Banned sockpuppeteer (well over 100 sockpuppet accounts). Request checkuser to see if Iron Scorp (talk · contribs) is Verdict (talk · contribs) in disguise. If true (and it may not be), request blocking (but not revealing) the open proxies used by that account to edit Wikipedia. Iron Scorp is a new account and immediately started editing the same sort of articles as Verdict and shows the same problems with written English. Original ban discussion took place here. --Yamla 15:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red X Unrelated. Different countries, no open proxies found.Voice-of-All 17:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict[edit]

  • Code letter: F (see below for details)

Banned sockpuppeteer (well over 100 sockpuppet accounts) back with multiple confirmed abusive sockpuppets. Request blocking (though not disclosure) of IP addresses used in latest round of violations and identification of other accounts created at the same time if possible. Original ban discussion took place here. --Yamla 04:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since blocking the ISP, I believe Verdict has been editing via open proxies. Just noting for the record, and because this may affect the checkuser details. --Yamla 04:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that all of the above accounts are confirmed sockpuppets, just looking for a block on the open proxies and identification of other accounts. --Yamla 15:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added a couple more. -- Oakster  Talk   16:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
information Note: OK, I've blocked quite a few open proxies in there. Voice-of-All 05:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Verdict[edit]

Banned sockpuppeteer (well over 50 sockpuppet accounts) back with two more confirmed abusive sockpuppets. Request blocking (though not disclosure) of IP addresses used in latest round of violations and identification of other accounts created at the same time if possible. --Yamla 15:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Randomname987 may or may not be Verdict. This is the only one in the list above that I am not sure about. The account is already blocked by another admin, so do the check if you feel it appropriate but it's not necessary. --Yamla 14:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: MGAME is editing many of the same articles in a similar manner but the images are different from what we've seen so far from Verdict. As such, I am unsure whether or not this one is a sockpuppet. Please check. --Yamla 16:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Additional information needed: Per F, could you provide the link which resulted in the ban or the block? Thanks. Real96 16:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As per below, the user known initially as Verdict (talk · contribs) was blocked by Samuel Blanning (talk · contribs) for continued violations. After discussions on unblock-en-l, it was decided that the user was still acting abusively (still creating sockpuppets, still blatantly violating copyright, etc.) and would not be unblocked for at least 3 months. The abuse continued and the block was extended to at least a year. The user has continued to create sockpuppet accounts (well over 50 at last count) and has requested numerous unblocks, all of which have been declined. The various sockpuppets have been blocked by at least nine independent administrators (list available on request). More information available on request. --Yamla 16:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: Verdict is probably going to be community banned very soon. See the thread here. PTO 12:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the community ban is now officially in place. --Yamla 14:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CN. --Yamla 15:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This user has promised to come back with a vengence and has promised to create numerous abusive sockpuppets and continue editing abusively in the next few days. Almost certainly, this will involve unblocked TOR proxies. --Yamla 23:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 IP blocked -- many. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Verdict[edit]

  • Code letter: F

This is the fourth request to check possible Verdict socks. Verdict sockpuppets blocked by at least ten different administrators. Unblock request denied on unblock-en-l. Well over fifty abusive socks created. Bad Boy133, No Surrender No, and Shawnrocks are already confirmed as sockpuppets but I am less certain on O.C12. This account is editing exactly the same articles as the Verdict socks, has the same poor grasp of English, and was created around the time as other accounts. Would likely have been created at the same time as several other accounts, likely from an open proxy. Requesting check and disclosure of other accounts created at the same time. Also, blocking of open proxy. --Yamla 14:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed.  IP blocked Blocked or re-blocked some thirty open proxies. However, these open proxies were also used by a number of apparently non-Verdict editors, so I'm not going to provide a big list of them. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was looking for a list of other accounts to block, accounts created at the same time from the same open proxies. But this may not be possible for you to determine. Thanks, though! --Yamla 15:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict[edit]

These users are already confirmed as puppets of Verdict however it is evident he has more sleepers and may be employing an open proxy that need blocking. –– Lid(Talk) 05:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two new accounts both requesting unprotection of the page. Matt WWE I can pretty much confirm is another sock as one of his first acts was to upload one of Verdict's images but Frank needs a checkuser as he is claiming to not be related at all and to possess a second account. These claims need checking as it is possible Frank simply made a poor choice however Verdict has tried this sort of thing in the past. –– Lid(Talk) 06:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Confirmed; and Frank88 was created the very same minute on the very same IP as Eric 360 and Real Deal Lashley. Several  IP blocked too. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Verdict[edit]

  • Code letter: F

Indefinitely blocked user continues to create sockpuppets on a daily basis in order to continue blatant copyright violations and to continue avoiding the block on the parent account. Please identify the open proxies this user is likely using so they can be shut down. It would also be useful if any other sleeper accounts were identified but this may not be appropriate. Yamla 16:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed. Also:
  1. 360 Kid (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  2. Big Badass (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  3. Big Kid88 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  4. Boy 1990 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  5. Boy 90 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  6. BoyRoy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  7. Degrayman (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  8. Egyegy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  9. Haron85 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  10. Jimbobobert (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  11. Kid 1990 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  12. Lashley Fan (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  13. Teafyplant (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
These need to be checked and blocked. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Verdict[edit]

  • Code letter: F

The user known initially as Verdict (talk · contribs) or Martin181 (talk · contribs) was blocked for continued violations. The user created a large number of sockpuppet accounts, approximately 15 at last count. After discussions on unblock-en-l, it was decided that the user was still acting abusively (still creating sockpuppets, still blatantly violating copyright, etc.) and would not be unblocked for at least 3 months. The abuse continued and the block was extended to at least a year. The user has continued to create sockpuppet accounts and has requested numerous unblocks, all of which have been declined.

This person has now started creating sockpuppet accounts and letting them sit for five days in order to edit semi-protected articles. As such, we know the user has several other accounts in addition to the proven sockpuppet accounts listed above. I would like you to identify these accounts so they can be blocked. Additionally, if the user is operating from a single IP address (this looks unlikely, I believe user has switched to open proxies and the like), I would like that identified so we can block it for perhaps 6 months. Yamla 17:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed. Some of the addresses have been open proxies, some I've not been able to confirm, but they're in similar ranges. I've blocked the OPs I've found. I'm thinking we might want to block a /24 range; let us know if more of these pop up. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Confirmed the new ones too. /24 range block applied; some more sleepers might show up, but no new ones, if we're lucky. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You spoke too soon.  :( --Yamla 00:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no. I didn't block the individuals. You might wish to do so or get someone to do so. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.


source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Verdict

Leave a Reply