Wikid77
- Wikid77 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Wz777 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- surfaced following the block on 1 January 2009
Evidence submitted by LeadSongDog
- The entries I list above have been engaged in editing the controversial article Murder of Meredith Kercher ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and/or coaching/coaxing User:PilgrimRose ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) in editing it. Today xhe crossed a line [ here].
- Full disclosure: I have been engaged over the past weeks in informal efforts to calm the dialog on that article's talkpage by both sides. I have not been engaged in editing the article or advocating for any edits. LeadSongDog come howl 18:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- It appears that the coaxing has been read here and 18 minutes later was followed by the registration of User:Darryl98 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) who then proceeded to edit the same article. LeadSongDog come howl 21:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Please observe that account Wikid77 and sock Wz777 continue today editing at Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher. LeadSongDog come howl 14:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
- Checkuser request – code letter: CODE LETTER (Unknown code )
- Current status –
Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below. Requested by
LeadSongDog
come howl 18:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Aside from the username similarity, the edit summary usage seems unusual and similar and both userpages identify the same range of tenure.
Clerk endorsed for CU attention.
Nathan
T 22:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
This is a bit of a mess. 
Confirmed Wikid77 = Wz777. But also Confirmed that
Darryl98 =
PilgrimRose.
Dominic·
t 07:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Does seem to me that Wz777 needs to be blocked and Wikid77 stripped of IPBE. Note that, just for fun, this guys has been coming through a Bambifan-blocked range. I don't quite get what Wikid77 is up to. --
jpgordon
::==( o ) 17:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Both accounts say they started in 2005. It is possible that Wz777 is an undisclosed
WP:SOCK#LEGIT of Wikid77? If so, should we make him declare that? –
MuZemike 20:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Um,
User:Wz777 was created
yesterday afternoon. Someone needs to inform this guy that you can't "libel" a pseudonym, and that people saying things you might not like about your pseudonym is not a justification for creating a second account, especially not if that account is going to be used in the same discussion. --
jpgordon
::==( o ) 21:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, you're right. I overlooked that important fact. – MuZemike 22:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Um,
User:Wz777 was created
yesterday afternoon. Someone needs to inform this guy that you can't "libel" a pseudonym, and that people saying things you might not like about your pseudonym is not a justification for creating a second account, especially not if that account is going to be used in the same discussion. --
jpgordon
::==( o ) 21:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- I've asked Bigtimepeace and Tedder if they have any advice on what admin actions to take, since they have had some previous experience with the Kercher article.
EdJohnston (
talk) 21:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Just leaving a quick note her per request from EdJohnston. I was only briefly involved with the article that spawned this report after picking up on an ANI thread and then leaving a general note here to basically all editors since the editing environment had deteriorated severely. I was concerned about the behavior of PilgrimRose (among others) but primarily in terms of communicating with other editors, not socking. Wikid77 seemed to be engaged in a lot of speculation on the article talk page (sort of thinking out loud about the case but not explaining what that would mean for the article or providing sources to back up their arguments), but this did not seem to me to be a major issue at the time, rather just an example of not-so-great talk page etiquette. I haven't checked in on the article talk page since the second week of December and I'm afraid I don't have any thoughts about appropriate admin actions and/or block lengths, though given the difficulty of the editing environment over there I would think any socking should be dealt with rather harshly. Sounds like we might need some more information (including replies from those accused) before making any firm decisions though. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Both accounts say they started in 2005. It is possible that Wz777 is an undisclosed
WP:SOCK#LEGIT of Wikid77? If so, should we make him declare that? –
MuZemike 20:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- This isn't really complicated. Wz777 should be indefinitely blocked, and Wikid77 should be given either a short block or a stern warning that the next block may be indefinite.
Nathan
T 22:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- For consistency with PilgrimRose, how about a one month block for Wikid77, plus an indef for Wz777. The IPBE permission for Wikid77 would be lifted, since that privilege is based on good behavior. EdJohnston ( talk) 22:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Per WP:AN3#User:Darryl98 reported by User:FormerIP (Result: Three editors blocked), as well as the above checkuser finding that Darryl98 and PilgrimRose are the same person, and since PilgrimRose and Darryl98 have both edited Murder of Meredith Kercher, I have blocked Darryl98 indef, and PilgrimRose for one month. Other admins may adjust as they think best. EdJohnston ( talk) 07:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Wikid77 has been blocked one month for sockpuppetry, and his IPBE permission has been removed. Wz777 has been indeffed. EdJohnston ( talk) 00:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- 12.78.83.128/25 blocked 3 months for evasion. – MuZemike 04:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
|
This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser. |
Wikid77
- Wikid77 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Wz777 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- surfaced following the block on 1 January 2009
Evidence submitted by LeadSongDog
- The entries I list above have been engaged in editing the controversial article Murder of Meredith Kercher ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and/or coaching/coaxing User:PilgrimRose ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) in editing it. Today xhe crossed a line [ here].
- Full disclosure: I have been engaged over the past weeks in informal efforts to calm the dialog on that article's talkpage by both sides. I have not been engaged in editing the article or advocating for any edits. LeadSongDog come howl 18:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- It appears that the coaxing has been read here and 18 minutes later was followed by the registration of User:Darryl98 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) who then proceeded to edit the same article. LeadSongDog come howl 21:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Please observe that account Wikid77 and sock Wz777 continue today editing at Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher. LeadSongDog come howl 14:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
- Checkuser request – code letter: CODE LETTER (Unknown code )
- Current status –
Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below. Requested by
LeadSongDog
come howl 18:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Aside from the username similarity, the edit summary usage seems unusual and similar and both userpages identify the same range of tenure.
Clerk endorsed for CU attention.
Nathan
T 22:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
This is a bit of a mess. Confirmed Wikid77 = Wz777. But also Confirmed that
Darryl98 =
PilgrimRose.
Dominic·
t 07:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Does seem to me that Wz777 needs to be blocked and Wikid77 stripped of IPBE. Note that, just for fun, this guys has been coming through a Bambifan-blocked range. I don't quite get what Wikid77 is up to. --
jpgordon
::==( o ) 17:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Both accounts say they started in 2005. It is possible that Wz777 is an undisclosed
WP:SOCK#LEGIT of Wikid77? If so, should we make him declare that? –
MuZemike 20:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Um,
User:Wz777 was created
yesterday afternoon. Someone needs to inform this guy that you can't "libel" a pseudonym, and that people saying things you might not like about your pseudonym is not a justification for creating a second account, especially not if that account is going to be used in the same discussion. --
jpgordon
::==( o ) 21:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, you're right. I overlooked that important fact. – MuZemike 22:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Um,
User:Wz777 was created
yesterday afternoon. Someone needs to inform this guy that you can't "libel" a pseudonym, and that people saying things you might not like about your pseudonym is not a justification for creating a second account, especially not if that account is going to be used in the same discussion. --
jpgordon
::==( o ) 21:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- I've asked Bigtimepeace and Tedder if they have any advice on what admin actions to take, since they have had some previous experience with the Kercher article.
EdJohnston (
talk) 21:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Just leaving a quick note her per request from EdJohnston. I was only briefly involved with the article that spawned this report after picking up on an ANI thread and then leaving a general note here to basically all editors since the editing environment had deteriorated severely. I was concerned about the behavior of PilgrimRose (among others) but primarily in terms of communicating with other editors, not socking. Wikid77 seemed to be engaged in a lot of speculation on the article talk page (sort of thinking out loud about the case but not explaining what that would mean for the article or providing sources to back up their arguments), but this did not seem to me to be a major issue at the time, rather just an example of not-so-great talk page etiquette. I haven't checked in on the article talk page since the second week of December and I'm afraid I don't have any thoughts about appropriate admin actions and/or block lengths, though given the difficulty of the editing environment over there I would think any socking should be dealt with rather harshly. Sounds like we might need some more information (including replies from those accused) before making any firm decisions though. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Both accounts say they started in 2005. It is possible that Wz777 is an undisclosed
WP:SOCK#LEGIT of Wikid77? If so, should we make him declare that? –
MuZemike 20:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- This isn't really complicated. Wz777 should be indefinitely blocked, and Wikid77 should be given either a short block or a stern warning that the next block may be indefinite.
Nathan
T 22:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- For consistency with PilgrimRose, how about a one month block for Wikid77, plus an indef for Wz777. The IPBE permission for Wikid77 would be lifted, since that privilege is based on good behavior. EdJohnston ( talk) 22:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Per WP:AN3#User:Darryl98 reported by User:FormerIP (Result: Three editors blocked), as well as the above checkuser finding that Darryl98 and PilgrimRose are the same person, and since PilgrimRose and Darryl98 have both edited Murder of Meredith Kercher, I have blocked Darryl98 indef, and PilgrimRose for one month. Other admins may adjust as they think best. EdJohnston ( talk) 07:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Wikid77 has been blocked one month for sockpuppetry, and his IPBE permission has been removed. Wz777 has been indeffed. EdJohnston ( talk) 00:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- 12.78.83.128/25 blocked 3 months for evasion. – MuZemike 04:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
|
|
This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser. |