Her631

Her631 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
06 June 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Begoon
[edit]

[1] Repeatedly adding same badly sourced error that Sabah and Sarawk are dependencies of Malaysia rather than states, presumably to avoid 3RR, since this change is consistently reverted.  -  Begoon (talk) 04:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
[edit]

Considering the timing, these users might also be connected to User:95Kenrick, who has been making similar changes on the Sarawak and Sabah pages themselves. Orange Tuesday (talk) 04:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - I hadn't seen that - this discussion: Talk:Sarawak#Sarawak_as_a_Non-Self-Governing_Territory does seem to show a familiar pattern of similar edits being added by more than one editor, even to the degree of attempting to support them with the same source documents (which do not support). It looks just like this discussion: Talk:Dependent_territory#adding_a_new_section. Could be coincidence, I guess, but does look similar  -  Begoon (talk) 10:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

 Confirmed to be all same:

Technically  Likely the same as the above, but certainly also the same if you take the edits into account, are:

Amalthea 13:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked and tagged. Tim Song (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
07 June 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Dpmuk
[edit]

Inserting information into Sabah and Sarawak in a very similar manner (including bad grammar) to User:95Kenrick, a known sock.

This account is also very new with the first edits coming after the previous users were blocked. Dpmuk (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

WP:DUCK, indef blocked. Amalthea 16:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
12 July 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]

plus:note 1 below:

Evidence submitted by Begoon
[edit]

Please see: Talk:Dependent_territory#Other_dependecies_to_add

Multiple IP users, conducting one discussion in an identical manner and style to the 2 following sections, which were subject of previous investigation.  -  Begoon (talk) 07:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note 1
Also similar IPs edit warring to add wikisource link at Malaysia, Sabah, Sarawak and others seems possibly related  -  Begoon (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
[edit]

Per the admin note, ip 125.163.47.102 made another edit to the Malaysia article(adding wikisource link to external section). BejinhanTalk 05:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

 Clerk note: looks like the ranges could be:

Although this is only based of the page history of Talk:Dependent territory. SpitfireTally-ho! 12:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note It's been several days since any of these IPs have edited and I hesitant to block any of them for that reason. There also have not been any IP edits to the talk page for several days. TNXMan 16:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13 September 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Begoon
[edit]

Duckish (is that a word?) behaviour. I'm opening this, per request here, with apologies for not initially adding it as a case.  Begoon•talk 15:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the light of checkuser evidence being stale, after reflection, the behavioural evidence I could add would probably be insufficient, and therefore I feel as though it may have been somewhat premature to open this case, particularly as the editor concerned does not seem to have continued with the edits which led me to do so. It may well be in order to close this case without wasting too much time on it, and if so I apologise for my haste in opening it. I shall be more circumspect in future.  Begoon•talk 19:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

It looks like this will need to be decided on behavior. All the previous accounts in the archive are  Stale and I have nothing to which I can compare. TNXMan 17:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More