Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check/Archive

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thatcher (talk | contribs) at 23:43, 14 October 2006 (move completed sections from main RFCU page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requests for IP check

This page lists requests to identify and block the IP addresses behind attack and vandal accounts that were previously listed at Requests for checkuser. After the account has been reported as blocked or declined by the checkusers, the report is moved here for seven days (most recent sections at the bottom), after which it is deleted. Because there is no attempt to establish a relationship with a puppetmaster account, no separate archive is kept, other than the page history.

The return of sir.jack the ripper

Using lots of accounts they made many bizarre violent threats before. DVD+ R/W 06:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, here is the result of the post here from before [1] DVD+ R/W 22:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Another Bobby Boulders Sockpuppet

John254 22:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No open proxy. Redux 23:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I saw it using a blackslashing proxy. Should check for the proxy and ban the proxy. Anomo 20:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, thanks. Dmcdevit·t 22:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After the block of User:LiverpoolCommander as a sock of User:TheM62Manchester User:Gold-Horn was created. This user has engaged in a similar pattern to other socks of this user and I have blocked. Given the history of a string of vandals behind the account it maybe worth checking if there are any sleeper accounts/other accounts having also been created. The two IPs listed are the IP of User:Gold-Horn which I have blocked for a month, and the other is used by web proxy service and has been used to protest User:Gold-Horn's innocence signing as Joanne or Becky (take your pick), again might be worth a look into. --pgk 06:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser turns up nothing interesting, probably worth checking again after a while. Dmcdevit·t 08:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another backslashing proxy screwing up existing edits. Zetawoof(ζ) 02:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, thanks. Dmcdevit·t 08:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


U FAT LOOZERZ CANT GET DATES!!!!!!!!!!!

This user is creating multiple attack accounts, including:

So if someone can get the IP so this person can be banned from creating new accounts ST47Talk 22:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note:Moved from transcluded subpage above (now deleted). In the future, please list checks to get the IPs and block in the proper section, as denoted above. Voice-of-All 00:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IPs have been blocked, socks all taken care of. Dmcdevit·t 07:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user is a sleeper account from mid-September that just struck with massive page move vandalism, including one of the many Challenge of the GoBots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) attacks. Ryūlóng 08:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vulvartis created a malicious redirect from Noah_slater to Cunt which is being investigated internally as part of ongoing organisational harassment case. If the IP address of User:Vulvartis was revealed it would help point investigations in the right direction.

This might be unrelated. A Checkuser brings up nothing of note. Dmcdevit·t 08:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Code letter: perhaps A or C?

All these accounts were created shortly after users requested these names at Wikipedia:Changing username. Those requestees who have responded have not created these accounts. I suspect that someone keen to disrupt Wikipedia - and with quite a bit of knowledge of its processes - has created these names, possibly to use for vandalism at a future date. Note that three of these accounts do not yet have any contributions; I don't know whether it is possible to check their IPs.

I have proposed at WP:BN renaming and blocking accounts created in this way, but even so, it wastes a lot of time. It would be beneficial to the process if the person responsible was unable to create any further accounts. It would also be useful to know if any are not sockpuppets; it is possible that one or two have been created in error by the requestees. Warofdreams talk 14:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]