Arcticocean (talk | contribs) |
Arcticocean (talk | contribs) m Protected Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole: Persistent abuse by anonymous accounts ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 21:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 21:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC))) |
(No difference)
|
Revision as of 21:41, 10 January 2012
Echigo mole
- Echigo mole (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Older archives were moved to an archive of the archive because of the page size and are listed below:
For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole/Archive.
– A checkuser has completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.
08 January 2012
- Suspected sockpuppets
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
Echigo mole / A.K.Nole is back again with his standard disruption during an ArbCom case, this time leaving trolling messages on the ArbCom clerk's talk page. Exactly the same range of IPs as used in the previous report. Note that I am not requesting checkuser here. Perhaps if the IP range is only used by Echigo mole, it should be blocked for a period. Mathsci (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Contrary to what A.K.Nole / Echigo mole suggests below, I do not wish to add any usernames to this report. There is more WP:DUCK however. Mathsci (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- More trolling in the mean time by A.K.Nole / Echigo mole, this time in connection with a different ArbCom request.[1] More WP:DUCK. Please block the IP ranges temporarily. Mathsci (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- The trolling has continued this morning in the same place from the 5th and 6th ipsocks. A.K.Nole / Echigo mole has been encouraging more disruption there.[2] Mathsci (talk) 08:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
- I was asked to look at the activity detailed above because I have investigated this case in the past. However, I do not feel we can do anything here from a technical perspective.
No comment on the link between the anonymous accounts and previous Echigo mole activity. Range block for the abuse by the above anonymous users is
Not possible due to the significant collateral on the underlying range(s). My recommendation is that the IPs be blocked for a short time by the patrolling administrators (I do not wish to get involved for now). AGK [•] 18:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- I did not say there was no connection to Echigo mole. I said I have no comment as to whether such a connection exists. The specific identity of the anonymous accounts does not matter in this instance: they can be blocked at the discretion of an administrator for abusive behaviour. AGK [•] 21:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)