LUCPOL
- LUCPOL ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:
Report date October 21 2009, 21:33 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
- Quadus ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Evidence submitted by Fut.Perf.
LUCPOL was recently engaged in heavy edit-warring against User:Maglocunus on two articles, Cieszyn Silesian dialect and Regional language, and declared openly that he intended to keep revert-warring over certain related POV issues. I blocked him for a week and gave him a stern warning under the WP:DIGWUREN discretionary sanctions clause. Immediately after, several IPs and then a new user appeared and continued his revert-war. Of the IPs listed above, the last two (the 85.* ones) were active prior to the block, but if they were him they were being used to evade 3RR. All IPs are geolocated to the region LUCPOL is known to be from.
The case seems almost "DUCK" certain, but since it's an issue of serious sanctions if sockpuppetry is confirmed (I intend to impose an indef topic ban), I would prefer if I could do it with the backing of a checkuser finding. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users
CheckUser requests
- Checkuser request – code letter: E + D (Community ban/sanction evasion and 3RR using socks)
- Current status –
Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below. Requested by
Fut.Perf.
☼
21:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
- The IPs mostly belong to Quadus who is
Unlikely to be LUCPOL. However,
Inter-man (
talk
+ ·
tag ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
spi block ·
block log ·
CA ·
CheckUser(
log) ·
investigate ·
cuwiki) is 
Confirmed as LUCPOL.
Brandon (
talk)
21:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Conclusions
- Sock blocked and tagged; LUCPOL's block extended for a month. NW ( Talk) 01:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, can we please keep this open for a bit? I'm rather surprised by this result. Can we give the supposed sock a chance to respond? As far as I can see,
Inter-man (
talk ·
contribs) has an editing profile totally unrelated to that of LUCPOL and, at first sight, appears to be a well-behaved constructive editor. Apparently he was never on anybody's radar as a likely sock, so he was also not notified of this case and was blocked out of the blue. The profiles are so different that I would be inclined to seriously consider the possibility of a false positive in the checkuser result; and even if they were the same person, it's not quite clear to me if these accounts would qualify as abusive socking, given their total separation. (It also happens that Inter-man hasn't been editing since LUCPOL's block, so there wouldn't technically be a charge of block-evasion either.)
Fut.Perf.
☼
06:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Inter-man has
requested unblocking. I'm not seeing any overlap that would suggest a good hand/bad hand setup, but I haven't done a thorough review going back for any length of time. From an evasion standpoint, LUCPOL was blocked on 19 October; Inter-man's last edit before today was on 18 October, so there is no overlap (at least, none with the most recent block). Concur with Fut.Perf's request for further review.
UltraExactZZ
Claims ~
Evidence
17:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I admit to not doing too close of a review. Feel free to shorten or overturn the blocks if you feel that is the correct move to do.
NW (
Talk)
18:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm more interested in the technical aspect of it - the CU result seems pretty clear-cut, but doesn't fit the behavioral evidence. We could have a sleeper, but the fact that it surprised Future Perfect, who is familiar with the puppetteer, is telling. I defer to Fut.Perf. on an unblock of Inter-man, though I would not object if a review of the CU result shows some plausible explanation.
UltraExactZZ
Claims ~
Evidence
19:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Another CheckUser has confirmed the results, I've asked Inter-man if he can explain.
Brandon (
talk)
02:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the double-check. Didn't mean to sound like I was questioning the result - the number of times I've sought a checkuser could be counted on one hand. Thanks again.
UltraExactZZ
Claims ~
Evidence
04:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm still not quite sure how to evaluate this, but I'm now also satisfied they are likely alternate accounts controlled by the same person. The contribution time patterns are highly sockoform, so Inter-man's explanation that they are just two strangers who happen to be on the same local network seems unconvincing. If he'd come clean, we perhaps could have arranged for a different administrative outcome on the basis of an AGF assumption of intended legitimate alternate account use, but with his denial this seems more difficult. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the double-check. Didn't mean to sound like I was questioning the result - the number of times I've sought a checkuser could be counted on one hand. Thanks again.
UltraExactZZ
Claims ~
Evidence
04:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Another CheckUser has confirmed the results, I've asked Inter-man if he can explain.
Brandon (
talk)
02:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm more interested in the technical aspect of it - the CU result seems pretty clear-cut, but doesn't fit the behavioral evidence. We could have a sleeper, but the fact that it surprised Future Perfect, who is familiar with the puppetteer, is telling. I defer to Fut.Perf. on an unblock of Inter-man, though I would not object if a review of the CU result shows some plausible explanation.
UltraExactZZ
Claims ~
Evidence
19:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I admit to not doing too close of a review. Feel free to shorten or overturn the blocks if you feel that is the correct move to do.
NW (
Talk)
18:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Inter-man has
requested unblocking. I'm not seeing any overlap that would suggest a good hand/bad hand setup, but I haven't done a thorough review going back for any length of time. From an evasion standpoint, LUCPOL was blocked on 19 October; Inter-man's last edit before today was on 18 October, so there is no overlap (at least, none with the most recent block). Concur with Fut.Perf's request for further review.
UltraExactZZ
Claims ~
Evidence
17:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, can we please keep this open for a bit? I'm rather surprised by this result. Can we give the supposed sock a chance to respond? As far as I can see,
Inter-man (
talk ·
contribs) has an editing profile totally unrelated to that of LUCPOL and, at first sight, appears to be a well-behaved constructive editor. Apparently he was never on anybody's radar as a likely sock, so he was also not notified of this case and was blocked out of the blue. The profiles are so different that I would be inclined to seriously consider the possibility of a false positive in the checkuser result; and even if they were the same person, it's not quite clear to me if these accounts would qualify as abusive socking, given their total separation. (It also happens that Inter-man hasn't been editing since LUCPOL's block, so there wouldn't technically be a charge of block-evasion either.)
Fut.Perf.
☼
06:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note: I'm going to mark as closed, unless anyone else has objections. I don't think, per the CU evidence, that any other admin actions can be taken at this time.
MuZemike
22:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
|
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
18 January 2011
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Maras84 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Spl908455 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- WojtekSIL ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Ozi ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"
In a vote to determine whether to revert LUCPOL's renaming of the article Silesian Voivodeship (autonomy) (see talk page for that article), four suspicious votes registered by the above users were noted (meat-puppets or sock-puppets).
The edits involved are the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Silesian_Voivodeship_%28autonomy%29&diff=prev&oldid=406769117
According to their contributions pages, users WojtekSIL and Ozi are sporadic users who just happened to respond to the vote within an hour of LUCPOL's own vote. User:Spl908455 is another occasional user who seems magically to have appeared to support LUCPOL one half hour after LUCPOL edited the page. User:Maras84 is a one-time user whose only activity was this vote.
User:LUCPOL has been blocked for sockpuppeteering before:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LUCPOL#Block_extended
As I was filing this request, I was notified that there is another request pending which was filed by another user. He has a long history of uncivil activity and disruptive editing on articles related to Silesia, where he constantly attempts to inject his political POV.
Please note that I suspect that user:LUCPOL convassed votes from the users listed above. I have no evidence that sock-puppeteering from a single IP occured.
Thank you Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 23:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
-
Clerk endorsed - I'm pretty convinced that Maras84 == WojtekSIL based on
these
edits, but I'm not positive about the others, so CU to see what's up. —
HelloAnnyong
(say whaaat?!)
23:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Note that I have just indef-blocked LUCPOL for a general long-term pattern of disruptive editing and extreme revert-warring. CU would still be useful to take care of any socks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- I only became a checkuser at the start of the year, so perhaps it would be prudent for another checkuser to verify my findings. From what I can tell these accounts are Unlikely, however
LUCPOL (
talk ·
contribs) appears to have an undisclosed sock of
Subtropical-man (
talk ·
contribs).
PhilKnight (
talk)
14:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, with the exception of LUCPOL (whose IPs don't geolocate anywhere beyond an entire country), all the accounts geolocate to the same metropolitan area, in the same country as LUCPOL. These other accounts had similar unusual UAs, but they were not the same as LUCPOL's which were much more common. I'd call the other accounts
Possible-ly linked to each other, but Unlikely linked to LUCPOL.
J.delanoy
gabs
adds
02:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, with the exception of LUCPOL (whose IPs don't geolocate anywhere beyond an entire country), all the accounts geolocate to the same metropolitan area, in the same country as LUCPOL. These other accounts had similar unusual UAs, but they were not the same as LUCPOL's which were much more common. I'd call the other accounts
- I only became a checkuser at the start of the year, so perhaps it would be prudent for another checkuser to verify my findings. From what I can tell these accounts are
- These results make me think we're looking at meatpuppetry here, so I'm going to close as no action for now. Feel free to relist if further developments arise. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
LUCPOL
- LUCPOL ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:
Report date October 21 2009, 21:33 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
- Quadus ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Evidence submitted by Fut.Perf.
LUCPOL was recently engaged in heavy edit-warring against User:Maglocunus on two articles, Cieszyn Silesian dialect and Regional language, and declared openly that he intended to keep revert-warring over certain related POV issues. I blocked him for a week and gave him a stern warning under the WP:DIGWUREN discretionary sanctions clause. Immediately after, several IPs and then a new user appeared and continued his revert-war. Of the IPs listed above, the last two (the 85.* ones) were active prior to the block, but if they were him they were being used to evade 3RR. All IPs are geolocated to the region LUCPOL is known to be from.
The case seems almost "DUCK" certain, but since it's an issue of serious sanctions if sockpuppetry is confirmed (I intend to impose an indef topic ban), I would prefer if I could do it with the backing of a checkuser finding. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users
CheckUser requests
- Checkuser request – code letter: E + D (Community ban/sanction evasion and 3RR using socks)
- Current status –
Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below. Requested by
Fut.Perf.
☼
21:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
- The IPs mostly belong to Quadus who is Unlikely to be LUCPOL. However,
Inter-man (
talk
+ ·
tag ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
spi block ·
block log ·
CA ·
CheckUser(
log) ·
investigate ·
cuwiki) is Confirmed as LUCPOL.
Brandon (
talk)
21:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Conclusions
- Sock blocked and tagged; LUCPOL's block extended for a month. NW ( Talk) 01:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, can we please keep this open for a bit? I'm rather surprised by this result. Can we give the supposed sock a chance to respond? As far as I can see,
Inter-man (
talk ·
contribs) has an editing profile totally unrelated to that of LUCPOL and, at first sight, appears to be a well-behaved constructive editor. Apparently he was never on anybody's radar as a likely sock, so he was also not notified of this case and was blocked out of the blue. The profiles are so different that I would be inclined to seriously consider the possibility of a false positive in the checkuser result; and even if they were the same person, it's not quite clear to me if these accounts would qualify as abusive socking, given their total separation. (It also happens that Inter-man hasn't been editing since LUCPOL's block, so there wouldn't technically be a charge of block-evasion either.)
Fut.Perf.
☼
06:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Inter-man has
requested unblocking. I'm not seeing any overlap that would suggest a good hand/bad hand setup, but I haven't done a thorough review going back for any length of time. From an evasion standpoint, LUCPOL was blocked on 19 October; Inter-man's last edit before today was on 18 October, so there is no overlap (at least, none with the most recent block). Concur with Fut.Perf's request for further review.
UltraExactZZ
Claims ~
Evidence
17:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I admit to not doing too close of a review. Feel free to shorten or overturn the blocks if you feel that is the correct move to do.
NW (
Talk)
18:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm more interested in the technical aspect of it - the CU result seems pretty clear-cut, but doesn't fit the behavioral evidence. We could have a sleeper, but the fact that it surprised Future Perfect, who is familiar with the puppetteer, is telling. I defer to Fut.Perf. on an unblock of Inter-man, though I would not object if a review of the CU result shows some plausible explanation.
UltraExactZZ
Claims ~
Evidence
19:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Another CheckUser has confirmed the results, I've asked Inter-man if he can explain.
Brandon (
talk)
02:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the double-check. Didn't mean to sound like I was questioning the result - the number of times I've sought a checkuser could be counted on one hand. Thanks again.
UltraExactZZ
Claims ~
Evidence
04:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm still not quite sure how to evaluate this, but I'm now also satisfied they are likely alternate accounts controlled by the same person. The contribution time patterns are highly sockoform, so Inter-man's explanation that they are just two strangers who happen to be on the same local network seems unconvincing. If he'd come clean, we perhaps could have arranged for a different administrative outcome on the basis of an AGF assumption of intended legitimate alternate account use, but with his denial this seems more difficult. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the double-check. Didn't mean to sound like I was questioning the result - the number of times I've sought a checkuser could be counted on one hand. Thanks again.
UltraExactZZ
Claims ~
Evidence
04:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Another CheckUser has confirmed the results, I've asked Inter-man if he can explain.
Brandon (
talk)
02:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm more interested in the technical aspect of it - the CU result seems pretty clear-cut, but doesn't fit the behavioral evidence. We could have a sleeper, but the fact that it surprised Future Perfect, who is familiar with the puppetteer, is telling. I defer to Fut.Perf. on an unblock of Inter-man, though I would not object if a review of the CU result shows some plausible explanation.
UltraExactZZ
Claims ~
Evidence
19:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I admit to not doing too close of a review. Feel free to shorten or overturn the blocks if you feel that is the correct move to do.
NW (
Talk)
18:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Inter-man has
requested unblocking. I'm not seeing any overlap that would suggest a good hand/bad hand setup, but I haven't done a thorough review going back for any length of time. From an evasion standpoint, LUCPOL was blocked on 19 October; Inter-man's last edit before today was on 18 October, so there is no overlap (at least, none with the most recent block). Concur with Fut.Perf's request for further review.
UltraExactZZ
Claims ~
Evidence
17:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, can we please keep this open for a bit? I'm rather surprised by this result. Can we give the supposed sock a chance to respond? As far as I can see,
Inter-man (
talk ·
contribs) has an editing profile totally unrelated to that of LUCPOL and, at first sight, appears to be a well-behaved constructive editor. Apparently he was never on anybody's radar as a likely sock, so he was also not notified of this case and was blocked out of the blue. The profiles are so different that I would be inclined to seriously consider the possibility of a false positive in the checkuser result; and even if they were the same person, it's not quite clear to me if these accounts would qualify as abusive socking, given their total separation. (It also happens that Inter-man hasn't been editing since LUCPOL's block, so there wouldn't technically be a charge of block-evasion either.)
Fut.Perf.
☼
06:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note: I'm going to mark as closed, unless anyone else has objections. I don't think, per the CU evidence, that any other admin actions can be taken at this time.
MuZemike
22:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
|
|
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
18 January 2011
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Maras84 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Spl908455 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- WojtekSIL ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Ozi ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"
In a vote to determine whether to revert LUCPOL's renaming of the article Silesian Voivodeship (autonomy) (see talk page for that article), four suspicious votes registered by the above users were noted (meat-puppets or sock-puppets).
The edits involved are the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Silesian_Voivodeship_%28autonomy%29&diff=prev&oldid=406769117
According to their contributions pages, users WojtekSIL and Ozi are sporadic users who just happened to respond to the vote within an hour of LUCPOL's own vote. User:Spl908455 is another occasional user who seems magically to have appeared to support LUCPOL one half hour after LUCPOL edited the page. User:Maras84 is a one-time user whose only activity was this vote.
User:LUCPOL has been blocked for sockpuppeteering before:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LUCPOL#Block_extended
As I was filing this request, I was notified that there is another request pending which was filed by another user. He has a long history of uncivil activity and disruptive editing on articles related to Silesia, where he constantly attempts to inject his political POV.
Please note that I suspect that user:LUCPOL convassed votes from the users listed above. I have no evidence that sock-puppeteering from a single IP occured.
Thank you Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 23:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
-
Clerk endorsed - I'm pretty convinced that Maras84 == WojtekSIL based on
these
edits, but I'm not positive about the others, so CU to see what's up. —
HelloAnnyong
(say whaaat?!)
23:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Note that I have just indef-blocked LUCPOL for a general long-term pattern of disruptive editing and extreme revert-warring. CU would still be useful to take care of any socks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- I only became a checkuser at the start of the year, so perhaps it would be prudent for another checkuser to verify my findings. From what I can tell these accounts are Unlikely, however
LUCPOL (
talk ·
contribs) appears to have an undisclosed sock of
Subtropical-man (
talk ·
contribs).
PhilKnight (
talk)
14:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, with the exception of LUCPOL (whose IPs don't geolocate anywhere beyond an entire country), all the accounts geolocate to the same metropolitan area, in the same country as LUCPOL. These other accounts had similar unusual UAs, but they were not the same as LUCPOL's which were much more common. I'd call the other accounts Possible-ly linked to each other, but Unlikely linked to LUCPOL.
J.delanoy
gabs
adds
02:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, with the exception of LUCPOL (whose IPs don't geolocate anywhere beyond an entire country), all the accounts geolocate to the same metropolitan area, in the same country as LUCPOL. These other accounts had similar unusual UAs, but they were not the same as LUCPOL's which were much more common. I'd call the other accounts
- I only became a checkuser at the start of the year, so perhaps it would be prudent for another checkuser to verify my findings. From what I can tell these accounts are
- These results make me think we're looking at meatpuppetry here, so I'm going to close as no action for now. Feel free to relist if further developments arise. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)