81.247.129.47 (talk) |
→Comments by other users: comment |
||
Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
**FT2 lies. I suggest any sysop takes contact with ArbCom before taking any action. [[Special:Contributions/81.247.129.47|81.247.129.47]] ([[User talk:81.247.129.47|talk]]) 23:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC) |
**FT2 lies. I suggest any sysop takes contact with ArbCom before taking any action. [[Special:Contributions/81.247.129.47|81.247.129.47]] ([[User talk:81.247.129.47|talk]]) 23:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC) |
||
::: The emails on this are very clear on the functionaries list and can be verified by a number of functionaries active at the time. Arbcom was only involved on one point (as far as I know) - when told the background and asked whether they would consider taking over the case due to privacy issues. They replied that they didn't see a need to take the case over and confirmed the Functionaries team could handle the matter. |
|||
::: The functionaries email archives shows precisely as I stated above. Dates of relevant emails on request to any user with list access for verifying on the Functionaries list archives. [[user:FT2|FT2]] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]] | [[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]])</span></sup> 00:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
======<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>====== |
Revision as of 00:50, 16 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)
- The IPs appear to represent a user who has repeatedly been told there is a concern over a breach of WP:SOCK and has repeatedly "retired" only to return in breach of the exact same issue. If that identification is correct then regardless of the reporting user's own past (which is a bit of a distraction here), the IP user has been told formally and unconditionally that multiple Checkusers agree he is in breach of sock policy (in their view) and that he needs to comply with sock policy and disclose certain matters or cease editing the topic area of concern. He has consistently failed to make good and has also continued to edit the topic area knowing that Checkusers who reviewed his actions consider this a significant breach of sock policy. So action is probably reasonable now. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- FT2 lies. I suggest any sysop takes contact with ArbCom before taking any action. 81.247.129.47 (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- The emails on this are very clear on the functionaries list and can be verified by a number of functionaries active at the time. Arbcom was only involved on one point (as far as I know) - when told the background and asked whether they would consider taking over the case due to privacy issues. They replied that they didn't see a need to take the case over and confirmed the Functionaries team could handle the matter.
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)
15 September 2011
- Suspected sockpuppets
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
Ike previous ones (from yesterday) - same ISP, same location, same edits as previous socks Foo Bar Buzz Netz (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
What both FBBZ and FT2 report is not true. I suggest that sysops take contact with Arbcom. 81.247.129.47 (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)