Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Onequestion

Onequestion

• Onequestion (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Sonseeker007 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Fairchoice (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Code letter: F
• Supporting evidence:
• Fairchoice: [1] (trolling) [2] (first edit)[3] (third edit)
• Onequestion: [4] (note edit summary)
• Sonseeker007: [5] (cited at ANI thread)

At about the same time as my community-based block of Profg (talk · contribs) for disruption via off-wiki canvassing, (see discussion), several single purpose accounts appeared to carry on the disruption or oppose the block. Please see whether these are related to each other or any existing accounts. Onequestion has already been blocked by another administrator. Jehochman ^Talk 19:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved user

The checkuser clerk should be reminded not to merely transcluding without checking to see the request meets the requirements. Jehochman should be reminded that there is no violation of category F. After the block of 13 Jan 2008 at 19:36, none of the editors have edited. Therefore, they are all observing the block whether unintentionally or because they don't want to edit war.

Onequestion was invited to share his or her comments with the community but did not. Only Fairchoice voted on ANI, none of the other two did.

Fairchoice left a comment on Jimbo comment board. None of the others did.

Sonseeker edited Intelligent Design. None of the others did.

Fairchoice edited a talk page. None of the others did.

Therefore, there is no illegal use of socks (trying to edit the same articles).

This case is so easy that a checkuser is not needed. There is no overlap of articles edited so even if they edited from the same house or city, they did nothing illegal. The person who filed this checkuser should not file a checkuser with a category F when it's not a F.

Let's try to get along, folks.

Do not try to revert this away. This message is for sanity, not edit warring. I don't mean to attack you, Jehochman. Republic of One (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Republic of One (talk) 07:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I think there is definite block evasion going on here. See WP:MEAT and consider the relationship between these accounts and User:Profg who is currently blocked for a month. Checkusers are smart enough to know the proper use of their tools, and will certainly reject any request that constitutes fishing, but I am confident that this isn't. Jehochman ^Talk 07:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

 Note: - I took this case based on the evidence of likely block evasion, given the edit patterns. However ...

 Unrelated - all three

I'm reporting the following, however, as it is clearly abusive sock-puppetry, "using an alternate account to avoid scrutiny, to mislead others by making disruptive edits with one account and normal ones with another, or otherwise artificially stir up controversy is not permitted. Misuse of an alternate account may result in being blocked from editing.", especially given the edits by some of the accounts and the playing around on RfAs. One of the edits ended up oversighted because of the outting of the previous identity of an admin at RfA. I'm leaving one account out of this list, in deference to their privacy.

 Confirmed - Onequestion (talk · contribs) = Congolese fufu (talk · contribs), Cfufu (talk · contribs), Wikipeace2008 (talk · contribs), HappyBirthdayClubMember (talk · contribs)

- Alison ^❤ 08:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed -