Wiktionary:Requests for checkuser/Archive

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archived cases from WT:CU. Please do not edit.

User:Wonderfool[edit]

Notes: Thought to be Wonderfool SemperBlotto 11:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEStock? Hey, come on SB, what the hell does Wonderfool know about advanced biology anyway? (The laxative gave you away! SB) It ain't gonna be easy for him to clandestinely sneak back into Wiktionary now is it? I guess it will be necessary to add unformatted entries in fron now on, so the community assumes the user is a newbie. Otherwise there's no point in WF hanging around if he's gotta make 3 new accounts every time he just wants to circumvent a block to edit...maybe the community do this for a reason... to get rid of him. He never thought of that. --MeonX 11:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC) (block the accounts already!)[reply]
Out of interest, what would WF have to do in theory to be formally allowed back into the English Wiktioanry community? --MeonX 11:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About £500 per sysop... Jonathan Webley 11:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderfool (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks)

--Connel MacKenzie 17:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Looj[edit]

User:Looj has been making a high volume of suspicious/disruptive additions to our list of made-up words. The fact that the user is bouncing IPs compounds my suspicions, but the blatant use of other accounts to add seeming validity to the entire class of nonsense being submitted, is unacceptable. I do not know if we have policys to deal with this sort of subterfuge, nor really if we need it spelled out in policy (but that would help.)

Note: I ran a preliminary CU on this user, and found a disturbing number of IP addresses used within a large netrange. The number of sock puppets used is equally disturbing. Would another CU please run similar checks and list the results here.

Obviously, the made-up terms for large numbers have also been unhelpful: discovering that all the arguments made on their behalf originated from a single person discredits all the arguments made in their defense. We may need to coordinate an effort to expunge them all, as a result of this.

--Connel MacKenzie 18:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only found one user who had shared IP with Looj, Shoof. Shoof had shared IP once with Fark.

Jon Harald Søby 19:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, did you follow those sock puppets? --Connel MacKenzie 19:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I did, but there were no more hits. Jon Harald Søby 01:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I guess we'll discuss the differences in channel then. --Connel MacKenzie 02:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

193.144.127.248[edit]

Showed up today, started in editing policy pages. Knows both too little and too much. Have we seen this one before? Robert Ullmann 10:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Azura[edit]

Equal to User:Sir James Paul who wants to make himself useful? Robert Ullmann 16:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Smokedetector, User:Rollcaller[edit]

Very similar patterns to the 4.235.x.x numbers vandal. I blocked Smokedetector for re-creating an entry he/she had created earlier. Haven't been able to nail the other yet, but it has to be the same one? Robert Ullmann 20:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should check here more often, I think. Rollcaller is not easily linked to Smokedetector by IP, but he is most certainly the same as User:OnedayWFllfindawaybackin, so... take a guess. Dmcdevit·t 01:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Requests_for_checkuser/Archive&oldid=3690842"