-
Waskerton (
talk
+ ·
tag ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
spi block ·
block log ·
CA ·
CheckUser(
log) ·
investigate ·
cuwiki)
Checked one of the SPAs at
Christine Fang and the associated AfD, found some 2 year old socks.
ST47 (
talk)
00:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
reply
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See
Defending yourself against claims.
I suspect this account is a sock being used by Waskerton for block evasion. (In the diffs labeled "Waskerton" I've included edits from the Waskerton account as well as other known socks of the same sockmaster.)
- Both have frequent typos where a letter is repeated 3 times instead of 1 or 2: (Estnot:
warrring,
tooo,
apppear; Waskerton:
agreeemenet,
legggitimate,
classs)
- Both use long run-on sentences (often without commas) in edit summaries (Estnot:
[1]
[2]; Waskerton:
[3]
[4])
- Both use a strategy of making a controversial edit, disappearing for several days or weeks, then coming back and making a similar edit with the same account (Estnot:
[5]
[6]; Waskerton:
[7]
[8])
- Both have made edits related to
Brahma Chellaney (Estnot:
[9]; Waskerton:
[10])
- Articles and talk pages in common include:
I'm requesting CheckUser attention because Waskerton is known to have used a number of socks in the past, so there may be others. (This is my first time filing an SPI, so please let me know if I've messed anything up.) —
Mx. Granger (
talk ·
contribs)
19:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
reply
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See
Defending yourself against claims.
-
In progress - --
RoySmith
(talk)
20:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
reply
- @
Mx. Granger: the most important thing about a SPI filing is that you present clear evidence, preferably in the form of diffs comparing current behavior to that of known socks. This you did in abundance, so thank you for that. We have limited historical data in this case, but I was able to glean a few hints from the CU logs which support the idea that Estnot is a Waskerton sock. Blocked as suspected. The nature of the data I have available didn't allow for an effective sleeper check. --
RoySmith
(talk)
21:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
reply
Could you check the users? Similarities are as follows.
Estnot going to noticeboard due to discussion not going their way:
[32]
[33].
Thundercloss going to noticeboard:
[34]
[35].
How Estnot argues, such as relying on headlines:
[36].
How Thundercloss argues:
[37]
[38].
Estnot's interest touching on debt trap:
[39].
Thundercloss' interest touching on debt trap:
[40].
Please let me know if I have left out any step.
Vacosea (
talk)
15:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
reply
Long edit histories of China heavy controversies: Estnot
[41] Thundercloss
[42]. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Vacosea (
talk •
contribs)
16:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
reply
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See
Defending yourself against claims.
Same interests as Waskerton's socks. Similar name as the latest blocked sock,
Thundercloss (
talk ·
contribs), which brings up thunder cloud in Google search. Account created a few days after Thundercloss was blocked.
Qiushufang (
talk)
03:00, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See
Defending yourself against claims.
Confirmed. I don't know whether Waskerton is the same person as
FobTown - they seem to live in the same city, and have similar interests, but if they are the same person then they are careful to keep the accounts they use on different devices separate. Blocking, tagging, closing.
Girth Summit
(blether)
13:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
reply
Per-forma filing
RoySmith
(talk)
16:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See
Defending yourself against claims.
- Well, bang goes my carrying his unblock to WP:AN. 😢