Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/Evamedia55
- Evamedia55 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · case block · block log · CA · checkuser (log) · investigate)
edit
- Tesla5150 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · case block · block log · CA · checkuser (log) · investigate)
- WikiSylvie15 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · case block · block log · CA · checkuser (log) · investigate)
- BANSAH Kodjovi (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · case block · block log · CA · checkuser (log) · investigate)
Rationale, discussion and results edit
Reason: All accounts are purely involved in editing this spam entity: Q97142604. As soon as one of the older accounts gets blocked, a new one emerges and almost exclusively edits this entity. Infogapp1 (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hello. How about merging with Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ilene Tom? Not the same user? --Sotiale (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hi @Sotiale: Looks like it. I didn't know this was an option. Is it acceptable practice to bump an existing/closed thread when there's a clear connection and re-transclude that thread in the main CU request? — Infogapp1 (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- Once the original account is revealed, it is a good idea to rename the case to that name(ex. Ilene Tom => Evamedia55). Or, even if you don't change the case name, you can continue making requests by appending requests from the case you started with(ex. Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ananislam138). I don't care which one you prefer, but two requests for the same user are not good. Please do what you prefer more in the way I said. --Sotiale (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Sotiale: Understood. I forgot about you mentioning Evamedia55 in the results. Also, I wasn't sure whether it's a fair game to keep bumping an already processed request. I've just added these information in the previous older thread Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ilene Tom. I don't what else to do with this case since it doesn't allow me to move/merge. I hope the steps I've taken are correct now. Let me know in case I need to fix anything else and help mak sure the process is easier for you and others. Thank you. — Infogapp1 (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. I will check it tomorrow and do something needed (here is 01:11AM :D it's time to sleep.) --Sotiale (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- Have a good night =) — Infogapp1 (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. I will check it tomorrow and do something needed (here is 01:11AM :D it's time to sleep.) --Sotiale (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Sotiale: Understood. I forgot about you mentioning Evamedia55 in the results. Also, I wasn't sure whether it's a fair game to keep bumping an already processed request. I've just added these information in the previous older thread Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ilene Tom. I don't what else to do with this case since it doesn't allow me to move/merge. I hope the steps I've taken are correct now. Let me know in case I need to fix anything else and help mak sure the process is easier for you and others. Thank you. — Infogapp1 (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- Once the original account is revealed, it is a good idea to rename the case to that name(ex. Ilene Tom => Evamedia55). Or, even if you don't change the case name, you can continue making requests by appending requests from the case you started with(ex. Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ananislam138). I don't care which one you prefer, but two requests for the same user are not good. Please do what you prefer more in the way I said. --Sotiale (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hi @Sotiale: Looks like it. I didn't know this was an option. Is it acceptable practice to bump an existing/closed thread when there's a clear connection and re-transclude that thread in the main CU request? — Infogapp1 (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Results: