Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Korlzor/Archive

User:Korlzor

Korlzor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Korlzor

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

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

Report date 09:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Tennis expert (talk)

Since January 9, we have had a huge problem with vandalism committed by the above-listed IP addresses, which undoubtedly belong to Korlzor who was blocked on December 20, 2008, for 30-days for incivility and edit warring. The vandalism has been committed to the following articles and discussion pages: Ann Haydon Jones, Mats Wilander, Serena Williams, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis, 2009 WTA Tour, Maria Sharapova, Stefan Edberg, Talk:Joan Llaneras, Monica Seles, Tennis statistics, Women's Tennis Association, Hana Mandlikova, Venus Williams, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (links), 2009 ATP World Tour, User:Tennis expert, User talk:Tennis expert, Elena Dementieva, Martina Navratilova, File:Qatar_ExxonMobil_Open_logo.jpg, User talk:03md, Marc Lopez, Rafael Nadal, Ana Ivanovic, and Fernando Verdasco.

The vandalism began immediately after 62.57.239.182 said at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis "Why should Korlzor agree on a ban totally illegal, when it was you who broke the rules only got a warning, and not only Korlzor but 2 more people got a ban. And then it got extended, because YOU wanted it. It's pretty fun, if you've those admin friends I don't know why they didn't make you one already and make Key Biscayne a mega-hiper-featured article.".

See this list of suspected sockpuppets of Korlzor, which 62.57.212.77 attempted to delete on January 11.


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
  • I fully agree with this sockpuppet case as I've been reverting some of the edits from these IP addresses lately. They clearly look to be the work of Kolzer and his previous socks. Also note that I filed a SSP case against two of these IPs about a week ago, but nothing ever came of that case. Themfromspace (talk) 02:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree completely as well. This user is a major nuisance, and boasts with his/her use of IP addresses when circumvening blocks. A sad case.--HJensen, talk 21:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk note: imported from Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Korlzor -- lucasbfr talk 22:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)  Relisted missed by bot Mayalld (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can a checkuser please verify that there will not be collateral damage by hardblocking the following ranges: 62.57.0.0/16 and 81.184.0.0/16. I'm assuming these ranges are still active in these edits (this is an older case). I don't have time to fully check that the ranges are still active in these disruptive edits. If a cu does not want to run the checks due to the age of the case, please close/archive the case. —— nixeagleemail me 18:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below. Requested by Nixeagle


I've poked around these ranges:
  1. 62.57.238.0/23 (talk ·  · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  2. 81.184.0.0/17 (talk ·  · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
Both of them are noisy, unfortunately. Didn't see any obvious unblocked socks. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. 
--Kanonkas :  Talk   15:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date March 19 2009, 00:14 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Tennis expert (talk)

Dalkman appears to be a sockpuppet of the indefinitely blocked and highly disruptive user Korlzor (and countless IP sockpuppets of that user, a list of which can be found here). Dalkman and Korlzor (including his past proven sockpuppets) both have strong interests in the Rafael Nadal article. More specifically, both have strong interests in prohibiting the use of official sponsored names of tennis tournaments. See, e.g., Dalkman edit, Dalkman edit, Dalkman edit, Keita24 edit, Keita24 edit, Keita24 edit, Korlzor edit. The CASTELBANIA FAN account was created within 3 minutes of the Dalkman account on January 20, 2009. The first edits by those accounts were within 29 minutes of each other on March 18, 2009, and both of those first edits were to the Rafael Nadal article. See this thread on the administrators' noticeboard for more information. Tennis expert (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E  + B (Community ban/sanction evasion and ongoing serious pattern vandalism)
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by Tennis expert (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]


 Clerk declined Behavioural evidence is sufficient Mayalld (talk) 11:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions

 Completed Behavioural evidence is clear. Dalkman is Korlzor. Dalkman already indef blocked as a result of an ANI thread. Mayalld (talk) 11:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Mayalld (talk) 11:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Korlzor/Archive