Dannyboy1209 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Suspected sockpuppets

• Dannyboy1209 2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

User:Dannyboy1209 stated that a user, User:Dannyboy1209 2created after he was blocked was not him [1]. I am willing to believe this because an autoblock should have blocked his IP making this impossible. Can someone do an ip check on the two accounts? If they are the same, I suggest that talk page access be revoked. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

A sockpuppet investigation is not needed in this case as there is admitted disruption by the same user. when User:Dannyboy1209 was blocked they simply disconnected and then connected again their modem and got a new ip which is common on home broadband and dial up connections and made their new accountUser:Dannyboy1209 2. There is absoulutely no need for the checkuser to waste their time on this obvious sockpupptery to take place as there are not any valid basis to run it as it is not suspected but everything is already open and clear. Both accounts need to be permanently blocked indefinitely for admitted disruption that is it. 68.63.10.153 (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Complete trolling by User:Dannyboy1209 and a waste of everyone's time. Why wasn't his talk page access removed as well? I can't believe anyone took this seriously. Observe: That definetely wasn't me. I tried to go on a wikibreak, because I wanted to avoid WP to calm down a bit. I would not just try to create a second account and plus, I don't make spelling mistakes, the way my imposter does. Imposter? Definetely? , Voceditenore (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I assumed a checkuser confirming the issue would be the best way to ensure that talk page access should be revoked. I don't hang around here often. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Voceditenore and really doubt that a CheckUser will actually be necessary in this case. Seeing User:Dannyboy1209 2's contributions where they went and edited their RfA page Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dannyboy1209 2 where User:Dannyboy1209 had nominated their own other account for adminship (see on the page) after when it was closed Dannyboy1209 2 edited undo the close action which was then reverted and they were blocked for block evasion and now they claim they were not him! Seeing at their contributions, whether talk page access be revoked or not, admitted trolling and then not accepting it afterwards really waste's everyone's time and makes no sense to run this Sockpuppet investigation. TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Unnecessary. It really makes absolutely no difference whether the second account is his or not since the indefinite block on the primary account was not made as a result of the secondary account. If it is him, then:

• The primary account remains blocked, due to the original block having nothing to do with sockpuppetry.
• The secondary account remains blocked, due to being an impersonator.

If it is not him, then:

• The primary account remains blocked, due to the original block and also because he's operated sockpuppets.
• The second account remains blocked due to sockpuppetry.

Since the check makes no difference to anything, there's no point even carrying it out. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 09:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Deskana, I won't argue very strenuously, since I don't think an unblock of Dannyboy1209 is likely in the near future, but... if an admin wants to consider an unblock in the future, whether this was a sock or not would be important for them to know I think. Also, if it was an impersonator, seems like they're probably up to more no good, and it might be worth finding if they've created other impersonation accounts, or are editing from an open proxy, etc. Still, your call of course. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Now, that second bit is actually a valid reason for a check. The accounts are  Unrelated, and it looks like there are no open proxies or other impersonation accounts being operated. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 12:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• All are blocked, 28bytes seems to have handled everything needed. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

• 92.0.100.29 (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.

Came in #wikipedia-en-help asking for help on how to create bot, admitted to editing using IP, and this is the IP he connected with. Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 18:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• IP is already blocked, not much to do. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

• 92.0.117.99 (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.

Block evasion -- evident via user comments in #wikipedia-en-helpers on IRC. Theopolisme 20:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Self-admitted. Nothing is abusive or disruptive here, but the ip should probably be temporarily blocked and the case archived for future reference.  Ryan Vesey 20:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 81.149.223.179 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

I'm adding an IP that he has definitely used in the past because there has been new activity from that IP today. See this diff. The comment was to the reference desk which Dannyboy has had troubles with in the past. It also shows similar disruption in the demand of "NOW". Ryan Vesey 20:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Blocking 92.xxx for 1 month and 81.xxx for 3 given that he has been more persistent at that address. Closing.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]