Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jacurek Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Jacurek

• Jacurek (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 154.20.146.225 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 70.79.12.228 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• Code letter: E

• Supporting evidence:It is highly probable that User:Jacurek is revert warring and evading his 4 month block for socking, block evasion and disruption [1] as IP 154.20.146.225 and IP 70.79.12.228 at History of Jews in Poland[2]. Besides the same pattern of editing, most convincing evidence that IP 154.20.146.225 and Jacurek is the same editor is here: Jacurek forgets to sign his post at talk page [3], IP 154.20.146.225 comes to sign it minutes later [4], and vice versa edit by IP 154.20.146.225[5] signed minutes later by Jacurek [6]. IP 70.79.12.228 displays the same pattern of editing and is coming from the same area as IP 154.20.146.225. Editor Jacurek was blocked for socking and block evasion before (see User:Cvc42) and IP 70.79.12.228 continues reverting the same articles with similar edit summaries as sock Cvc42 did: please compare [7] and [8]. --- M0RD00R (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Unnecessary The first reason not to file a checkuser request (at the top of WP:RFCU says "Obvious, disruptive sock puppet" -- this is an excellent example of that. CheckUser is not needed when the editing is as obvious as this. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 14:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is rather obvious case. But there do we go from here then. Should I file it at SSP board?M0RD00R (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ambor (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Follow up. This user restored IP 154.20.146.225 edits, with accusation of stalking in edit summary directed at me [9]. Ambor's scope of edits falls in sock's Cvc42 editing history scope Please compare sock's Cvc42 edit [10], Ambor's edit [11]. M0RD00R (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• •  Confirmed that Ambor is Jacurek. Blocked and tagged. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that socking is confirmed, shouldn't anything be done about block evasion by sockpuppeteer? And how about IPs? M0RD00R (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Something already done: Sam Korn indefblock and tag puppeteer (=Ambor). Sam, please block IP's for suitable length of time, or inform Bishzilla, right here, how long anons be blocked, she do it. bishzilla _ROARR!! 22:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
      • Minor correction: technically speaking Ambor is not a puppetter, it's a simple sock. Jacurek is a puppetmaster. That's my point. M0RD00R (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, yes. As neutral admin, I will consider indef block of Jacurek. bishzilla _ROARR!! 22:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
      • I have reset the block on Jacurek to another 4 months. I have blocked 154.20.146.225 for three months as it is clearly a static-ish IP. I believe 70.79.12.228 is probably dynamic, so there is no particular point in blocking it at the moment. That do, Bish? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • (ec) Result consideration: Sam Korn already block Jacurek for 4 months, per [12]. 'Zilla not change duration little Sam's block. bishzilla _ROARR!! 22:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

• 154.20.89.37 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) another IP from Vancouver, BC ranting about persecution of Jacurek [13]. It seems this guy just does not get what block means. M0RD00R (talk) 08:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure I don't need to comment about the identification of the user, but I can tell you that a rangeblock is impossible. Each IP is just going to have to be blocked when it comes up. You don't really have to reopen the RFCU -- a post to ANI or to my talk page would be fine. Oh, and the IP is blocked for 48 hours. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 09:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Will do just that in future. M0RD00R (talk) 10:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]