SMG055

SMG055 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log· investigate · cuwiki)
Report date November 8 2009, 04:13 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.)

The initial user was blocked for bad uploads.

  • Both based on Sarah Michelle Gellar's name with 55 added at the end.
  • Same type of edits, adding "Critical reception" headers to movies. See [1] and [2].
  • Both has called me a vandal for reverting her/his unconstructive edits. See [3] and [4]
  • The person uploaded another image with a fake license tag too. See [5].
  • Threatening another person with the same bad English, as well as using the word "immature" both times and listing the articles involved. See [6] and [7]
  • Also apologized about an image, just like with the other accounts. See [8], [9] and [10].
  • Most likely created this one after I first accused her/him for sockpuppeting two days ago. A check user would probably confirm it. Same type of edits, e.g. changing the captions of posters to "Film", adding critical reception headers, changing the reference template to reflist, etc. See [11], [12]

Logged in within the same 10 minute span on the two first accounts and removed the talk page SSP notice. See [13] and [14].

If it quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 04:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. The same language gives it away. MuZemike 04:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date November 18 2009, 03:03 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Elizabeth Bathory
[edit]

Admits to being the same person here. Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 03:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
Conclusions
[edit]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Blocked/tagged. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]




Report date November 22 2009, 17:18 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets:
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Elizabeth Bathory
[edit]

Redoing all the same edits as the blocked socks. See [15], [16]

Also adding critical reception headers, just like the previous socks, with the same kind of language. See [17]

Clearly a duck. Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 17:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

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

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. MuZemike 01:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date December 1 2009, 01:14 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Elizabeth Bathory
[edit]

Everything below is the type of edits that were done with the other accounts as well.

99% 100% sure this is a duck. Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 01:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

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

information Administrator note I agree. Blocked and tagged. MuZemike 03:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date December 8 2009, 16:52 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Elizabeth Bathory
[edit]

First SSP is a duck. Same language, same reasoning. Similar user name. American, but raised in Mexico. Tries to avoid some of the old articles and edit patterns to avoid being "detected". As for the second SSP, she admitted to being the same person here. Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 17:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

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

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. MuZemike 00:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Report date December 16 2009, 14:20 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Elizabeth Bathory
[edit]

It's a duck, but requesting CU so you can block the underlying IP and any possible sleepers as well. Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 14:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
[edit]
CheckUser requests
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 14:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed to check for underlying IP/range and for sleepers. MuZemike 19:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

 Confirmed. No obvious sleepers.  IP blocked. J.delanoygabsadds 21:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
[edit]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.