Foo Bar Buzz Netz (talk | contribs) |
HelloAnnyong (talk | contribs) Comment, marking case as closed |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{SPI case status}} |
{{SPI case status|close}} |
||
<noinclude>__TOC__</noinclude> |
<noinclude>__TOC__</noinclude> |
||
{{SPIarchive notice|Noisetier}} |
{{SPIarchive notice|Noisetier}} |
||
Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>====== |
======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>====== |
||
*{{adminnote}} Bleck, what a mess. Slightly less than half of the listed IPs here have edited in the past month. I've blocked 81.247.0.0/17, 87.65.238.71 and 91.180.120.246 for a week each. — [[User:HelloAnnyong|'''<span style="color: #aaa">Hello</span><span style="color: #666">Annyong</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:HelloAnnyong|(say whaaat?!)]]</sup> 01:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
---- |
||
<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. --> |
<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. --> |
Revision as of 01:16, 15 September 2011
– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.
Noisetier
- Noisetier (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
14 September 2011
- Suspected sockpuppets
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
User:Noisetier is an indef-blocked user who has admitted to being the same as User:Ceedjee on French wikipedia. He is now using a number of IPs to avoid his block and continue editing. Take a look at - Talk:Siege of Jerusalem (1948), and the edits of 81.247.37.163, 87.65.245.111, 87.66.182.246, 81.247.93.37, and on the article's page, edits by 81.247.68.185. It is obvious that this is Ceedjee/Noistier - same Belgium-based ISP, same English grammar mistakes, same old POV-push (battle vs. siege) that Ceejee/Alithien/Balagen has been driving since at least 2006 ([1]) Foo Bar Buzz Netz (talk) 17:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. The indef block was placed at the request of the user, so even if this were true the proper response would be to unblock the account as the user does not wish to remain prohibited from editing. But does nobody else see the irony of an obvious sockpuppet attempting to punish others' supposed sockpuppetry? Do we really need this crap? nableezy - 17:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Prior to "retiring" and asking to be blocked, the user was warned he needs to leave the topic area, or be blocked. If he wants to be unblocked he needs to request it, and agree to leave the topic area. Foo Bar Buzz Netz (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
- Administrator note Bleck, what a mess. Slightly less than half of the listed IPs here have edited in the past month. I've blocked 81.247.0.0/17, 87.65.238.71 and 91.180.120.246 for a week each. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)