Misplaced Pages

:Sockpuppet investigations/Jacurek: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:18, 9 June 2011 editMuZemike (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users71,084 edits Placing case on hold pending opinions from other CUs on the matter← Previous edit Revision as of 18:17, 9 June 2011 edit undoPiotrus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers285,738 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 42: Line 42:
======<span style="font-size:150%">Comments by other users</span>====== ======<span style="font-size:150%">Comments by other users</span>======
<small>''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See ].''</small> <small>''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See ].''</small>
*If Jacurek is socking, after what happened before, he deserves all he gets. But I seem to be unable to find a rationale above as to why the socks are supposed to be Jacurek's. I do not consider myself an expert in SPI investigations, but looking at the archive, I see one sock blocked for behavioral evidence (no IP-proof) in 2010, and another last month, controversially as the user admitted it was an ''unintentional'' meatpuppet, and IP evidence was not conclusive (great way to reward editors for being honest). And now there is this weird sock farm. I think we are dealing with some disruptive user who needs to be stopped, but whether it is Jacurek, or somebody else, that is not clear to me. Through FSP seems to have no doubts, I have my own doubts about his attitude towards Jacurek (seeing as he once given him a few months block for a single uncivil comment...). Either way, we should figure out who is being disruptive, and if possible, block some IP range, but let's be open to the possibility it is not Jacurek. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 18:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)



======<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>======

Revision as of 18:17, 9 June 2011

Jacurek

Jacurek (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/Jacurek/Archive.

– An administrator or SPI clerk has placed this case on hold pending further information or developments.

08 June 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

These are socks left over from Jacurek's latest topic ban evasion . Other sockpuppets from the same editing spree that have already been identified and blocked on 17 May and subsequent socks identified and blocked on 24 May are listed here for the record:

Requested actions:

  • indef block of the sockmaster, given his record of socking/ban evasion/other disruption
  • indef block of the not-yet-blocked sockpuppet accounts
  • indiscriminate revert of the sockpuppets' contribs to not encourage further socking; many contribs of the blocked as well as the still unblocked socks are still online
  • consider if the IPs are likely to be used again by Jacurek, then block
  • probably categorize/template the sock and sockmaster accounts Skäpperöd (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

  • If Jacurek is socking, after what happened before, he deserves all he gets. But I seem to be unable to find a rationale above as to why the socks are supposed to be Jacurek's. I do not consider myself an expert in SPI investigations, but looking at the archive, I see one sock blocked for behavioral evidence (no IP-proof) in 2010, and another last month, controversially as the user admitted it was an unintentional meatpuppet, and IP evidence was not conclusive (great way to reward editors for being honest). And now there is this weird sock farm. I think we are dealing with some disruptive user who needs to be stopped, but whether it is Jacurek, or somebody else, that is not clear to me. Through FSP seems to have no doubts, I have my own doubts about his attitude towards Jacurek (seeing as he once given him a few months block for a single uncivil comment...). Either way, we should figure out who is being disruptive, and if possible, block some IP range, but let's be open to the possibility it is not Jacurek. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 On hold pending some opinions from some other CUs regarding this. –MuZemike 03:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Categories: