[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SSS108/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



SSS108

SSS108 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date October 11 2009, 22:49 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]



Evidence submitted by Jéské Couriano
[edit]
Sbs108 was blocked for being an SSS108 sockpuppet (block log for SSS108, Sbs's block log); he is now contesting his block, calling it based on hearsay. Requesting CU to determine if there is any connection between Sbs and SSS. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 22:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

this is sbs108 defending myself from my iPhone as my computer is blocked from editing. Let me state I AM NOT SSS 108. Sbs are the intials of my name. I joined wikipedia around April 2009. The main reason cited for my block was the admin claimed I wasn't a new user based on my edits. This is ridiculous. Just because I quickly learned my way around doesn't mean I was a banned user. The second reason was that all my edits were in defense of Sai Baba. So what, this doesn't prove I am this banned user. The user crotalus who brought the case was not even involved in the article at all so wouldn't know about the banned user unless someone told him to put a case on me. This is very suspicious. His reason for putting the case on me was that my name was similar and I had the Same grammatical errors as the banned user. This is absurd. He has not shown any proof of "gramatical" errors that are similar if this could actually be proven. The duck test here is thoughly flawed. Someone needs to look deeply into this case. I was banned way too quickly and unjustly. PLEASE review this case there is no evidence at all. I need other admins to look at this case and look at the duck accusation. This case was brought in bad faith by user crotalus. He needs to be questioned as to why he brought the case. Please look at his involvement in the article which is nil. He was upset over a recent edit war. Again I am not sss108. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.131.38 (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]
CheckUser requests
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: A  + E (Arbcom ban/sanction evasion and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 22:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]


Declined, per the duck test. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 06:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that the master account listed is  Stale. Checkuser won't have much to contribute unless there are other suspected sockpuppets who have recently edited. Nathan T 18:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
  • In the absence of further evidence (in lieu of the unavailable CU evidence) this case can only be closed with no conclusion. On WP:AE Tznkai asked for a comment from SPI folks; worth noting that beyond the obvious similarity of the username and focus on Sai Baba, no behavioral or other evidence has been presented. The SPA/username stuff might be enough for a duck block in some cases, but there is a pretty significant editing gap here and I (personally) would like to see some additional evidence. Nathan T 19:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
[edit]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.




Report date October 14 2009, 18:49 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Jéské Couriano
[edit]

As before, except that now SSS108 has posted within the past 24 hours as PSSS108 (talk · contribs). I apologize for the CU request in advance.


Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
[edit]
CheckUser requests
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: A  + E (Arbcom ban/sanction evasion and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 18:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]


 Clerk endorsed MuZemike 18:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

 Confirmed SSS108 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) =

Sbs108 (talk · contribs) and Sbs020 (talk · contribs) appear to be Red X Unrelated to the above.
The three accounts that are confirmed are identical: Same ISP, same range, same extremely uncommon user agent.
Sbs108 and Sbs020 are not on the same range, or even on the same ISP as the above, and they have different user agents. Furthermore, their IPs do not geolocate anywhere near SSS108; Sbs020 geolocates more than 10000 km away. J.delanoygabsadds 23:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
[edit]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SSS108/Archive&oldid=1084292969"