| Revision as of 19:25, 14 October 2014 editBinksternet (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers494,433 edits →Comments by other users: what can a block evader do to become legitimate? WP:OFFER← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:30, 14 October 2014 edit undoPaul Erik (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators76,611 edits →25 September 2014: CU requestNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| =====<big>25 September 2014</big>===== | =====<big>25 September 2014</big>===== | ||
| {{SPI case status| |
{{SPI case status|CU}} | ||
| ;Suspected sockpuppets | ;Suspected sockpuppets | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
| ======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>====== | ======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>====== | ||
| * I've marked this with a request for a checkuser, for the same reason as last time: In the past, this user has created new accounts prior to the latest one being discovered (or while an SPI is under way), so I believe it is worth a checkuser to look for sleepers. <font face="Comic sans MS">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 20:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. --> | ----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. --> | ||
Revision as of 20:30, 14 October 2014
GoldDragon
GoldDragon (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected
For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/GoldDragon/Archive.
25 September 2014
– A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.
- Suspected sockpuppets
- BenefactorDubsta (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- 99.238.175.149 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
- Editor interaction utility
No need for checkuser as this is an easy case. BenefactorDubsta is focusing once again on GoldDragon's usual topics of business concepts and leadership issues, and on computer devices. As was typical of GoldDragon, this sock can be found putting his bare url reference into plain brackets, without the HTML ref tag. This new sock returned to some usual articles such as Macintosh which was also edited many times by confirmed sock Limefrost Spiral and by suspected IP 99.238.175.149 which is from the same Canadian metropolitan area as GoldDragon. IP 99.238.175.149 was also interested in the Apple Store just like BenefactorDubsta and Limefrost Spiral. As well, IP 99.238.175.149 was interested in Desktop computer just like BenefactorDubsta and Limefrost Spiral. This case was not slow to dawn on me; rather, the moment I saw BenefactorDubsta show up on some articles on my watchlist I knew it was GoldDragon returning. Binksternet (talk) 03:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
- Just wondering, has this person actually been doing anything wrong to articles? I know it's socking to evade a block, but if that block was back in 2011 and there's been no actual bad edits since then and this is (as it seems) a genuine enthusiastic editor, wouldn't it make more sense all round to just change the original block to "time served" and let him get back to work? Neatsfoot (talk) 09:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Neatsfoot: They can bring up these points if and when they request an unblock from their original account. --NeilN 15:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- That's a fair point. I'd like to see people working together to get this editor unblocked, but you're right, an unblock request should be the way to start it off. Neatsfoot (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for vouching for me. It reminds me of the editors on Roy Halladay who fought successfully at Talk:Roy_Halladay#Reverting_edits_by_banned_user to keep my contributions in the article, over the the reverts of 99.224.51.134. Indeed, 99.224.51.134 has such a grudge that he/she makes a sport out of reverting my contributions just because its me rather than seriously looking at the content or making changes. Admin Binksternet is taking the 6 month final offer so literally that he'll go on a revert rampage once he discovers that I'm back, and 99.224.51.134 is only too happy to follow suit. BenefactorDubsta (talk) 03:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- The six-month requirement of WP:OFFER is your only avenue of legitimacy, and even that path will not be easy. But until you resolve to stay away for six months, including IPs and sock accounts, then revive your GoldDragon account and ask for the standard offer, you will be evading a block. Block evaders are not welcome at Misplaced Pages, no matter the absolute value of their contributions. Binksternet (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for vouching for me. It reminds me of the editors on Roy Halladay who fought successfully at Talk:Roy_Halladay#Reverting_edits_by_banned_user to keep my contributions in the article, over the the reverts of 99.224.51.134. Indeed, 99.224.51.134 has such a grudge that he/she makes a sport out of reverting my contributions just because its me rather than seriously looking at the content or making changes. Admin Binksternet is taking the 6 month final offer so literally that he'll go on a revert rampage once he discovers that I'm back, and 99.224.51.134 is only too happy to follow suit. BenefactorDubsta (talk) 03:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- That's a fair point. I'd like to see people working together to get this editor unblocked, but you're right, an unblock request should be the way to start it off. Neatsfoot (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Neatsfoot: They can bring up these points if and when they request an unblock from their original account. --NeilN 15:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Continuing to add original research after being warned: . Edit warring, edit warring, and more edit warring: Vandalism: It's the bad behavior that gives him away. 99.224.51.134 (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
- I've marked this with a request for a checkuser, for the same reason as last time: In the past, this user has created new accounts prior to the latest one being discovered (or while an SPI is under way), so I believe it is worth a checkuser to look for sleepers. Paul Erik 20:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Categories: