Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Onequestion

• Onequestion (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Sonseeker007 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Fairchoice (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Code letter: F
• Supporting evidence:
• Fairchoice: [1] (trolling) [2] (first edit)[3] (third edit)
• Onequestion: [4] (note edit summary)
• Sonseeker007: [5] (cited at ANI thread)

At about the same time as my community-based block of Profg (talk · contribs) for disruption via off-wiki canvassing, (see discussion), several single purpose accounts appeared to carry on the disruption or oppose the block. Please see whether these are related to each other or any existing accounts. Onequestion has already been blocked by another administrator. Jehochman ^Talk 19:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved user

The checkuser clerk should be reminded not to merely transcluding without checking to see the request meets the requirements. Jehochman should be reminded that there is no violation of category F. After the block of 13 Jan 2008 at 19:36, none of the editors have edited. Therefore, they are all observing the block whether unintentionally or because they don't want to edit war.

Onequestion was invited to share his or her comments with the community but did not. Only Fairchoice voted on ANI, none of the other two did.

Fairchoice left a comment on Jimbo comment board. None of the others did.

Sonseeker edited Intelligent Design. None of the others did.

Fairchoice edited a talk page. None of the others did.

Therefore, there is no illegal use of socks (trying to edit the same articles).

This case is so easy that a checkuser is not needed. There is no overlap of articles edited so even if they edited from the same house or city, they did nothing illegal. The person who filed this checkuser should not file a checkuser with a category F when it's not a F.

Let's try to get along, folks.

Do not try to revert this away. This message is for sanity, not edit warring. I don't mean to attack you, Jehochman. Republic of One (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Republic of One (talk) 07:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think there is definite block evasion going on here. See WP:MEAT and consider the relationship between these accounts and User:Profg who is currently blocked for a month. Checkusers are smart enough to know the proper use of their tools, and will certainly reject any request that constitutes fishing, but I am confident that this isn't. Jehochman ^Talk 07:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: - I took this case based on the evidence of likely block evasion, given the edit patterns. However ...

 Unrelated - all three

I'm reporting the following, however, as it is clearly abusive sock-puppetry, "using an alternate account to avoid scrutiny, to mislead others by making disruptive edits with one account and normal ones with another, or otherwise artificially stir up controversy is not permitted. Misuse of an alternate account may result in being blocked from editing.", especially given the edits by some of the accounts and the playing around on RfAs. One of the edits ended up oversighted because of the outting of the previous identity of an admin at RfA. I'm leaving one account out of this list, in deference to their privacy.

 Confirmed - Onequestion (talk · contribs) = Congolese fufu (talk · contribs), Cfufu (talk · contribs), Wikipeace2008 (talk · contribs), HappyBirthdayClubMember (talk · contribs)

- Alison ^❤ 08:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify? Will the unnamed account be allowed to continue editing, and all these be blocked as abusive socks? Thank you, Jehochman ^Talk 09:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main account here is Congolese fufu, the other ones are single-purpose accounts used to mislead and generally stir trouble without being associated with the main account. I've no opinion on blocking either way, though would not personally block the master account indef. I shall block the other SPA myself at a later date - it was a throwaway account anyway - Alison ^❤ 09:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've given the puppetmaster, who seems to be a generally productive contributor, a one minute block to note this case in their log, and have indefed the other accounts and tagged them. A clerk may want to check what I've done and let me know if it is all correct. Jehochman ^Talk 14:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I now recognize that it is against policy to do such short blocks. I recommend that an uninvolved administrator consider whether a one or two week block of the puppetmaster would be appropriate. I was trying to be lenient. Unfortunately, Archtransit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked me for doing that, without prior discussion or warning. Jehochman ^Talk 18:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am in no way involved with this case, just happened in by following a series of conversations. I agree with Alison that an indef block, at this point, would be entirely punitive for the main account. Indeed, now that Jehochman's clearly punitive block has gone through, and this check user has identified the sock accounts, I would have a hard time seeing a further block on the main account as being anything other than punitive. Pastordavid (talk) 03:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for that. The problem I had was that some sort of block was needed because the outing of another editor, which resulting in oversighting, is a very serious thing. If that activity is hidden by the use of a sock puppet, and there was until recently disruptive sock puppetry, that does warrant a block. I should have opted for a one week block instead of a 1 minute block. Sorry about that. My mistake, but now that it's done, I suggest we leave it. Jehochman ^Talk 03:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a stern warning on his talk page, as an uninvolved editor on the ongoing... side effects of this case. Note that I would personally have blocked longer, considering that an edit had to be oversighted. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely right. Sorry about that. Jehochman ^Talk 11:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update -- Checkuser also shows that Wikipeace2008 and Fairchoice were socks of Archtransit, see AN for his desysopping. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update -- See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Archtransit. Jehochman ^Talk 01:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]