Octanis

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

Report date October 14 2009, 10:06 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Snappy

Octanis and Zubenzenubi both edit Brian Cowen's article. Zubenzenubi's edits total less than 100 in a 2 year period. The 1st edit Zubenzenubi makes to Brian Cowen is to revert the very same edit that Octanis was doing. [1] & [2] That is certainly suspicious, since Zubenzenubi is a suspected sockpuppett (using IP addresses). Snappy (talk) 10:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  •  Stale - Octanis.
  • Red X Unrelated - Zubenzenubi and the IPs.

--Deskana (talk) 08:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

 Clerk note: No action taken at this time. It may be assumed that, if the two registered users are in fact the same user, then it can be assumed that Octanis is abandoned. Otherwise, there is no abuse occurring via the usage of multiple accounts that would warrant any blocking right now. If Octanis starts editing again, feel free to re-request checkuser if you still feel that these two accounts are being operated by the same person. Obviously, the IPs will be left alone, as none of them has edited in well over two years. MuZemike 19:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
11 October 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Very clear anti Fianna Fáil agenda. Previously suspected of socking in same manner and topics - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Octanis/Archive. Has again been edit warring using dynamic IPs to avoid sanction. A screaming DUCK. Competent Wikilawyer showing wide knowledge of the way the system works, thus CU request. RashersTierney (talk) 01:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I suspect that Octanis and user:Tayana are the same user. Both have recently edit Brian Crowley, in a similar style. Snappy (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darn! Forgot to include that recent one. At least one other seemed stale, so I didn't include it. RashersTierney (talk) 19:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • information Administrator note CU won't connect an account to IPs. Having said that, I'm pretty sure they're the same. 83.70.224.0/19 would be the range to block, but it's far too active to justify actually blocking on that range. Also, the IPs listed haven't been _consistently_ editing from them: it's a dialup range, so my guess is that every time the user logs back in, they get a different IP. I've protected the article in question for a week and have warned the master. Hopefully that puts an end to this. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • no Declined with regards to Tayana, because it has not been explained how, and I do not see why one could think that, that account is Octanis. There is Red X No technical evidence that Octanis has been socking, from what I can check within the paramters of his editing at Brian Crowley. AGK [•] 20:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree that the evidence does seem to show some form of connection, I'm not wholly convinced. Tayana hasn't edited in almost two weeks, so I'm going to assume some good faith and close this for now. Relist if it becomes active, or if there are further developments. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • How so? I was disinclined to look in detail into the behaviour of the accounts, because the filer offered little guidance. But I did do a cursory examination of the editing of the named accounts. I noticed no overlap in behaviour, other than that the two accounts both edit the same isolated article. Furthermore, Tayana was registered a long time ago, and I expect stronger evidence for accounts that are not apparent throw-aways. Also, as you say, the account hasn't edited recently, and you'd expect Octanis to put the other account, if they were related, into action during the most recent bout of edits at Brian Crowley. On a separate note, it is always possible that the accounts are meat-puppets. I'll defer to you or another clerk on how to handle this, what with the absence of technical evidence at the moment. AGK [•] 13:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is more connecting these accounts than one isolated article (see [3] ) for such a relatively small number of edits over a considerable time. When Zubenzenubi (the 'stale' sock I referred to above) is added, the 'Chloë Agnew' article (relatively unknown actress) rather stands out [4]. I accept that this was not the most comprehensive or professional SPI filing from the beginning, but neither was it a casual 'fishing expedition'. RashersTierney (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Octanis/Archive
No tags for this post.