Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser: Difference between revisions

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
FeloniousMonk (talk | contribs)
18,409 edits
→‎{{vandal|Wiggins2}} and {{vandal|Jason_Gastrich}}: One more suspected sock of Gastrich
Kelly Martin (talk | contribs)
17,726 edits
Line 59: Line 59:


:A friend alerted me that you are calling me a sockpuppet. Can I ask why you have initiated this attack on me? What have I ever done to you? What rules have I broken? How can I prove my innocence? *[[User:Peace Inside|Peace Inside]] 02:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
:A friend alerted me that you are calling me a sockpuppet. Can I ask why you have initiated this attack on me? What have I ever done to you? What rules have I broken? How can I prove my innocence? *[[User:Peace Inside|Peace Inside]] 02:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

::Peace Inside is the same editor as Jamal al Din, Peter McConaughey, and {{user|KIMP}}, which appears to be latest incarnation. [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]] ([[User talk:Kelly Martin|talk]]) 17:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


==={{User|Ruy Lopez}}===
==={{User|Ruy Lopez}}===

Revision as of 17:31, 22 January 2006


    Read this first

    This is the place to request sockpuppet checks and other investigations requiring access to the Checkuser privilege. Possible alternatives are listed below.

    Requests likely to be accepted

    Code Situation Solution, requirements
    A Blatant attack or vandalism accounts, need IP block Submit new section at #Requests for IP check, below
    B Evading blocks, bans and remedies issued by arbitration committee Submit case subpage, including link to closed arb case
    C Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism with many incidents Submit case subpage, including diffs
    D Vote fraud, closed vote, fraud affects outcome Submit case subpage, including link to closed vote
    E 3RR violation using sockpuppets Submit case subpage, including diffs of violation
    F Evading blocks, bans and remedies issued by community Submit case subpage, including link to evidence of remedy
    G Does not fit above, but you believe check needed Submit case subpage, briefly summarize and justify

    Requests likely to be rejected

    Situation Solution
    Obvious, disruptive sock puppet Block, no checkuser needed
    Disruptive "throwaway" account used only for a few edits Block, no checkuser needed
    Checkuser on yourself to "prove your innocence" Such requests are rarely accepted, please do not ask
    Related to ongoing arbitration case Request checkuser on the arbitration case pages
    Vote fraud, ongoing vote Wait until vote closes before listing, or post at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets
    Vote fraud, closed vote, did not affect outcome List at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets
    Other disruption of articles List at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets
    Open proxy, IP address already known List at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies
    You want access to the checkuser tool yourself Contact the Arbitration Committee, but such access is granted rarely


    When submitting a request

    • If submitting a new case subpage, use the inputbox below; if adding to an existing case subpage, see WP:RFCU/P#Repeat requests.
    • Choose the code letter that best fits your request. Provide evidence such as diff links as required or requested. Note that some code letters inherently require specific evidence.
    • When listing suspected accounts or IP addresses, use the {{checkuser}} or {{checkip}} templates. Please do not use this template in a section header.
    • You may add your request to the top of the #Outstanding requests section, by adding {{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/CASENAMEHERE}}. If you do not, clerks should check for pages in Category:Checkuser requests to be listed and will do this for you.
    • Sign your request.


    After submitting a request

    Privacy violation?

    this header: view • edit

    File a Checkuser Request
    Cases are created on subpages of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case.
    If you require help or advice, ask at Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser.

    If a case subpage already exists, edit the existing page instead, either adding to the currently open section (if the case is not yet archived) or adding a new section to the top (if the case has been archived). When editing an existing case, be sure to list it here or add Category:Checkuser requests to be listed to the subpage.

    If creating a new case subpage, add the name of the main account (or "puppetmaster", not the sockpuppet!) in the box below. Leave out the "User:" prefix. Do not remove the text in the box, add the name to the end only (that is, append the name to the existing text). Then press "Request a checkuser" and you will be taken to a page where you can fill out the request.

    Example: if you want to request a checkuser on User:John Doe, enter the text:
    Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/John Doe

    <inputbox> type=create editintro=Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Inputbox/Header preload=Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Inputbox/Sample default=Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ buttonlabel=Request a checkuser bgcolor=#F8FCFF width=50 </inputbox>

    Indicators and templates   (v  · e)
    These indicators are used by Checkusers, SPI clerks and other patrolling users, to allow easier at-a-glance reading of their notes, actions and comments.
    Case decisions:
     IP blocked  {{IPblock}}  Tagged  {{Stagged}}
     Blocked but awaiting tags  {{Sblock}}  Not possible  {{Impossible}}
     Blocked and tagged  {{Blockedandtagged}}  Blocked without tags  {{Blockedwithouttags}}
     No tags  {{No tags}}  Blocked and tagged. Closing.  {{Blockedtaggedclosing}}
    Information:
     Additional information needed  {{MoreInfo}}  Deferred  {{Deferred}}
    information Note:  {{TakeNote}}  In progress  {{Inprogress}}
    Clerk actions:
     Clerk assistance requested:  {{Clerk Request}}  Clerk note:  {{Clerk-Note}}
     Delisted  {{Delisted}}  Relisted  {{Relisted}}
     Clerk declined  {{Decline}}  Clerk endorsed  {{Endorse}}
    Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention  {{Selfendorse}} CheckUser requested  {{CURequest}}
    Specific to CheckUser:
     Confirmed  {{Confirmed}} Red X Unrelated  {{Unrelated}}
     Confirmed with respect to the named user(s). no No comment with respect to IP address(es).  {{Confirmed-nc}}
     Technically indistinguishable  {{Technically indistinguishable}}
     Likely  {{Likely}}  Unlikely  {{Unlikely}}
     Possible  {{Possible}}  Inconclusive  {{Inconclusive}}
    no Declined  {{Declined}} no Unnecessary  {{Unnecessary}}
     Stale (too old)  {{StaleIP}} no No comment  {{Nocomment}}
    crystal ball CheckUser is not a crystal ball  {{Crystalball}} fish CheckUser is not for fishing  {{Fishing}}
     CheckUser is not magic pixie dust  {{Pixiedust}} magic eight ball The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says:  {{8ball}}
     Endorsed by a checkuser  {{Cu-endorsed}}  Check declined by a checkuser  {{Cudecline}}
     Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely)  {{possilikely}}


    Enter requests below:

    DickyRobert (talk · contribs)

    • Going on several months now, a vandal known only as "User:DickyRobert" has been spamming and vandalising Wikipedia articles, as well as stalking, harassing, and otherwise making threats toward other editors [1] (and administrators). Yesterday I marked over 112 registered accounts as sockpuppets of this person. If someone would work some of their CheckUser magic so that we may determine which ISP(s) are being used in order to put a halt to this ongoing problem it would be greatly appreciated. (Previously requested here.) Best regards, Hall Monitor 21:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that User:Sjakkalle has placed a range block on 142.150.204.0/23. [2] Is this case now considered to be closed, or are you still working your way through the other 108 registered accounts to determine if other service providers are being used as well? Best regards, Hall Monitor 23:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would consider this one to still be under investigation. I did place a 4 hour block on 142.150.0.0/16 earlier because of related vandalism, but I haven't chased all of the many usernames involved down yet. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Attention: The range block may have been ineffective, please investigate recent DickyRobert sockpuppet John Glover Roberts (talk · contribs) for details. Hall Monitor 20:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are 8 more, created last night: User:Charlton Heston, User:Martin Luther King Jr., User:A Black Man, User:Taylor Bow, User:Jenna Jameson User:Frasier Crane, User:Angelina Jolie, and User:Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World, for a grand total of 175 sockpuppets now and counting. This should all be over soon. Best regards, Hall Monitor 17:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Dicky -- if this is in fact Dicky -- has moved off of the University of Toronto and is now using an IP in Boston. I wouldn't count on this being over soon. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Goodandevil (talk · contribs), possible sockpuppets 136.215.251.179 (talk · contribs), 84.146.223.17 (talk · contribs), 84.146.200.239 (talk · contribs), 84.146.238.75 (talk · contribs)

    There's been repeated edits/vandalism (depending on viewpoint) of Abortion, Samuel Alito, Miscarriage and Kwanzaa from this user and these IPs. We have reason to believe that the IPs and user name belong to one and the same person, as the edits and edit summaries are often of a similar style. The edit summaries are often used to hide the nature of the edit in question, usually by accusing people of POV or simply by making it appear as if it were maintenance according to standard policy. The edits themselves have been of a "right-wing" nature, introducing subtle but apparently deliberate POV into the above articles. He/she is prone to revert wars, as well as accusing admins of bias and violation of policy simply because of a warning. Suggestions have been made that this user is linked to the recent Free Republic incident, in which users at that site were incited to come and "bring balance" to Wikipedia. We need to know if this user name corresponds to any of these IPs, and/or any similar ones. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 22:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding that the user ignores con, frequently ignores cite, v, and accuracy, has ignored civil, 3rr, etc. Disruptive user. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    3RR has now officially been broken on Abortion by user and suspected sockpuppets as of 11:10, 4 October 2024 UTC [refresh], with reverts at least eight times in 24 hours. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 05:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The 136. IP is allocated to the US Army 5th Signal Command in Mannheim, Germany; the 84.146. IPs are all part of a dynamic range allocated to a German IP; it is reasonably probable (even without examining CheckUser evidence) that the IPs are all the same person given the edit history of each. I don't seen enough evidence of a policy violation of the sort that would justify using CheckUser to find out if these IPs are being used by Goodandevil. Jamyskis used {{time}} to specify the time of the purported 3RR violation, which really doesn't help matters at all (next time, use subst:), and my own review of the article history does not reveal an obvious 3RR violation. Please lay out the 3RR violation for me. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, forgot the subst: link. It would follow then, based on evidence, that he or she is based in Mannheim then, and later used a computer in a flat or internet café. The 84. IP belongs to T-Online, I know this because I'm an 84. too. I miscounted slightly - at last check, there were seven not eight reverts although not always from the same IP. The text is usually of the same nature but text is usually reincluded as opposed to reverted in the true sense: the wording is always slightly different. Here are the edits in question according to IP:
    User:136.215.251.179
    Edits at 14:16 and 14:21 reverted by Jamyskis
    Edits at 14:26, 14:39 and 14:43 reverted by Jamyskis
    Edit at 15:37 reverted by KillerChihuahua
    Edits at 16:43, 16:45, 16:52 reverted by Jamyskis
    User:84.146.249.98
    Edits at 00:00 and 00:02 reverted by Kyd
    Edit at 00:14 reverted by Kyd
    Edit at 00:22 reverted by Pilotguy
    These edits are only the ones that have happened in a 24-hour space - this has been an ongoing topic for a while, beginning with Goodandevil's edits. The UserCheck is needed to see if any action carried out (RfC presumably to begin with) could be extended to the user name if any of the IPs checked out as being identical to Goodandevil. Better to be safe than sorry. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 22:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing as though Goodandevil has no edits since January 4th, I'm declaring this one moot. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia

    Vandalism of Wikipedia by User:King Dickie Roberta, User:The Shinig, User:The Quiet American, User:Mickey Mickey You So Fine, You So Fine You Blow My Mind, Mickey, User:Big Bowski, User:Dirchlet, User:The armpit, User:William Henry Gates. --JWSchmidt 05:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]



    Peace Inside (talk · contribs)

    Almost certainly a sockpuppet of banned Zephram Stark (talk · contribs). See the previous sockpuppets here. Peace Inside registered less than a day after the previous incarnation (User:Pandora Rodriguez) was blocked and has all of Zephram's calling cards (accusation of admin abuse, despotism, long diatribes). Also, made a joke [3] about recognizing User:MONGO, who Zephram interacted with as another of his scokpuppets, User:Peter McConaughey. Carbonite | Talk 22:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: May have already moved on to Rudolf Nixon (talk · contribs). Only a few comments so far, but these [4] [5] [6] look more like out friend Zeph than a brand-new user. Carbonite | Talk 23:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    A friend alerted me that you are calling me a sockpuppet. Can I ask why you have initiated this attack on me? What have I ever done to you? What rules have I broken? How can I prove my innocence? *Peace Inside 02:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Peace Inside is the same editor as Jamal al Din, Peter McConaughey, and KIMP (talk · contribs), which appears to be latest incarnation. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruy Lopez (talk · contribs)

    User has been accused of using multiple sockpuppets to abuse other editors, and wage endless RV wars on other articles. Probable sockpuppets include User:HectorRodriguez, User:Lancemurdoch, User:Richardchilton, User:Hanpuk, user:Timoteo III and User:Halifax. User is currently involved in RfArb against multiple users, and prior acts of sockpuppets could support an unacceptable pattern of behavior. Lopez’s thoughts on who owns and runs Wikipedia are very similar to those of User:Lancemurdoch, and User:Richardchilton

    DTC 22:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Rudolf_Nixon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    User created today and voted in two important polls. Actual votes make me wonder if this is a sockpuppet of someone. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 23:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    See above. This is quite likely a sockpuppet of banned user Zephram Stark (talk · contribs). Carbonite | Talk 02:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree. Similar anti-Carbonite, anti-Radiant! comments. Similar user page to other ZS socks. Similar viewpoints on WP heirarchy. I'd say this is definitely a valid case for CheckUser. --LV (Dark Mark) 14:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    CantStandYa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This editor, also known by other names, Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Shran, appears to have some new usernames. [Note: inclusion on this list is not indicative of bad editing and includes some uncertain entries (hence the need for checking)].

    He normally uses 155.84.57.253 (talk · contribs) when not logged in, but insists that 24.0.91.81 (talk · contribs) is a different person, despite very similar editing patterns. Though the editor makes valuable contributions, his addiction to sock puppets, and his use of them to edit the same articles, appears abusive. -Will Beback 23:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC) [03:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)][reply]

    I have no relations with CantStandYa, I don't even know who he is. I'm not even American.--PatCheng 01:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No offense intended. If you are right then the checkuser function will clear up the matter. Cheers, -Will Beback 01:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    64.231.163.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 64.231.160.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    Suspected sock puppet of User:Hollow Wilerding, evading a block at The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask. This user has used sock puppets to make similar edits on the article under Solar Serenity (talk · contribs) and 64.231.176.254 (talk · contribs). Other known socks include DrippingInk (talk · contribs) and Winnermario (talk · contribs). Pagrashtak 01:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    87.239.90.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    Suspected sock puppet of User:Molobo in the revert war on both Germanisation and Anti-Polonism. Reasons why he is a suspect as well as why they need to be checked can be found there. Hope I'll get an answer at least here. Sciurinæ 10:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Piedras_grandes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Suspected sockpuppet of OnwardsCS (talk · contribs) per entry by Extreme Unction on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Contributions_needing_attention. May be violating block. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Add 000000001a (talk · contribs) whose only edit was a change to the TfD on a template created by Piedras grandes, with a similar edit summary style. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Duca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Suspected sockpuppet of now indefinitely banned Bonaparte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I remember this Duca fellow for extremely offensive trolling around contentious Romania/Moldova related articles months ago. Then he disappeared and now, after Boni's banned Duca is back with his trademark style entry [7], [8]. If Boni's reincarnation, should be banned indef. If just his twin-brother, still a shorter block would be helpful. --Irpen 18:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Irpen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Suspected sockpuppet of now yet un-identified Oleh Petriv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and AndriyK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I suspect they are all and the same person. Duca 19:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You bet I restored Duca's challenge. And no I don't make a secret of it. Anyone can see that I restored it by just checking the history. I don't agree with his style but you had no right to erase his challange here. Constantzeanu 00:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He replaced my entry with his. This was inapropriate and was reverted. Once you posted it properly, I didn't erase it. I welcome any checkuser, including on myself. To be called AndriyK's sockpuppet was rather bemusing. --Irpen 00:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. We should get a good laugh out of all this. Constantzeanu 03:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Tt1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Roitr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Suspected sockpuppets of each other currently engaging in an edit war on Comparative military ranks of World War II and Ranks and insignia of the Schutzstaffel. Also editing as an anonymous user with 82.80.* and 82.81.* IP addresses. howcheng {chat} 20:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Mackensen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 67.19.84.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    I've been accused of using a sockpuppet [9] to attack Freestylefrappe. My conscience is clear, as far as these things go, but I'd appreciate confirmation on the matter. For the record, my home IP address is 69.216.38.208 at the moment. Madame Sosostris (talk · contribs), my wife, also edits from that location. I also edit from work, with the IP 146.113.26.201, although that one may have varied over the past few months. Mackensen (talk) 02:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ravenflight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Rivethead28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Lupinespirit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Suspected sockpuppets of each other, all accounts created in the past two or three days, who've been edit-warring on Robin Artisson and the associated AfD page. All three of them have threatened to tell on me to "the Wiki staff," so I can't help suspecting that they are, indeed, the same person. Madame Sosostris 15:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Deadpool42 (talk · contribs) 209.198.136.237 (talk · contribs) Clesp (talk · contribs)

    • Only edits are to one article Sigmund_Solares and are only personal attacks against the article's subject. Before only anon users edited the page, however after a sprotect two registered users joined in on the article. I would like a check user to see if these 3 users are one in the same. Mike (T C) 16:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    KJVTRUTH (talk · contribs)

    While I don't suspect him of being a sockpuppet of User:Lightbringer, who is banned from editing Freemasonry articles, there are those who do, and I'd like to clear him if possible. Thanks. (P.S. -- he also seems to edit as 66.211.136.138 (talk · contribs)) --SarekOfVulcan 02:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Dzonatas (talk · contribs) and Jhballard (talk · contribs)

    Both user have been disruptive at the computer science and Joan of Arc articles. Both users claim to be working on the same SourceForge project [10] [11] [12]. As claims of sockpuppety are now being made on the talk page of computer science, I believe it would be best to settle this, as it isn't helpful in getting a contructive dialogue started. —Ruud 14:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Pgio (talk · contribs), FrankZappo (talk · contribs), Januszkarp (talk · contribs), DrHyde (talk · contribs), TTLightningRod (talk · contribs), and 81.193.157.168 (talk · contribs)

    This is probably skating the thin edge of acceptable requests here, but...

    A group of editors has been working to legitimize a pseudscience article (Aetherometry) over the last several months, at least, battling a series of editors determined to keep it, at least NPOV (my opinion, YMMV, etc.). Suddenly, a new editor has appeared (Januszkarp (talk · contribs)), questioning the lack of peer-reviewed sources, a key issue -- and suddenly all of the editors who minimized the issue fall in behind her and vote to delete the article on those grounds (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aetherometry (second nomination). My suspicions are that this is a Sollog-type situation -- if you can't control an article, kill it -- and I suspect sock/meatpuppetry as a technique.

    Note also that this matter is up at Deletion review. --Calton | Talk 03:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I suppose I'd take offense at being called a "sockpuppets/meatpuppets/or gullible cohort trying to use Wikipedia to promote the views and sell the self-published books of a complete load of half-baked crap being pushed by glory-seeking self-promoters not talented, knowledgable, or smart enough to get published or noticed by actual scientists or actual peer-reviewed journals" (Calton's very own words in the Deletion Review just moments ago).... But being that what he just said is simply an uninformed POV, I'm not as offended as he would wish. Let's not loose sight of the real issue at hand, and so soon after the AfD: That a group of influential Wikipedia Admins using their Sollog-type situation, have pushed relentlessly WITHOUT CITATION, that the article must be pseudoscience only upon the basis of its lack of coverage in mainstream reference. Calton, the hypocrite, is here to continue this game immediately following the removal of the material BECAUSE the original constructive group is tired of endlessly fending off the likes of his pseudo-science ass. TTLightningRod 03:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of good faith, I have to oppose this measure. Pgio is civil enough to be distinguished from the spitefulness of Zappo. LightningRod has a different personality from them both. As does Januszkarp. So unless the sockpuppeteer was an exceptional actor (it would be hard to keep up 3-4 different personalities) I must severely disapprove of this request. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 04:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    One wonders what psychological test User:Natalinasmpf applied to come to her conclusions about different personalities and her qualifications for determining on-line acting ability -- and how she missed the same falling-in-line behavior with the sudden appearance of User:Januszkarp, which is the actual basis for this request. One also wonders what, exactly, the horrible harm that will come if one more name -- whose behavior is remarkably similiar to others -- is added to pile of potential sockpuppets.
    And TTLightningRod, your gaseous expression of garment-rending hurt impresses me not -- I was asked my opinion, I gave my opinion, and did so in a way that the ludicrous, bad-faith nitpicking of User:Januszkarp would have no toehold, given the way she (or he) pounced on my simple use of the polite "in my opinion" in her (or his) attempt to score points. Oh, and if you're going to whine about indirect personal attacks, it's best not to employ direct personal attacks by calling me a "hypocrite" -- or do you apply different standards, which would be...damn, there's a word for that, which escapes me at the moment.
    Either this request is a good one on its merits or it's not -- and whether the target(s) are offended has nothing to do with that. --Calton | Talk 09:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Calton, you want to obfuscate the real issue at hand through calling into questions the intentens of user Januszkarp as "ludicrous, bad-faith nitpicking"? He was a breath of fresh air, to put into words, without taking sides, the maddening double standards here at Wikipedia. So unlike you, I will be point-blank, so as not to mince any words..... Go fuck yourself Calton. Go fuck yourself and your CalvinBall bullshit. Go fuck yourself Wikipedia, your Caltons, your CalvinBall bullshit, and your bullshit future trying to call yourself an encyclopedia. Please, Oh please most powerful Admin of All..... Permanently block this user from the psycho-sphere called Wikipedia. TTLightningRod 14:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Natalina about Pgio. My (albeit limited) interactions with this user have been positive. NSLE (T+C) 05:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Rockumsockum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This is a rather fishy new account, making edits to WP:RFAr as its first edits. As well, the edits its been making have been inserting slashes ([13]) which I seem to remember is an sign for an open proxy. Should be looked at. Dmcdevit·t 09:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wiggins2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), California12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Jason_Gastrich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    It is suspected that Wiggins2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), California12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are sockpuppets of Jason_Gastrich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This diff [14] shows four reverts within 24h by 207.200.116.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), Wiggins2, and then an edit by Gastrich. If Wiggins2 was posting from IP 207.200.116.11 then that is a clear 3RR violation and Wiggins2 should be blocked. If Gastrich was also posting from the same IP address that is clear proof that Wiggins2 is a Gastrich sock; that is important because the edit history of Wiggins2 consists minaly at this point of solicitations to vote in AfD debates of articles created by Gastrich and his acknowledged sock Big_Lover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I take on board the points above that there needs to be a good reason: I believe this is a good reason, per policy, to check these contribs. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 09:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Whoops ... I should've read the above entry when making this request. I'm now merging the two.

    Jason Gastrich has been involved in an extremely disruptive attempt to influence a the outcome of a dozen AfDs over the past week. His tactics have included "campaigning" via Wikipedia talk by finding like-minded individuals through userboxes, posting a call to action on his Ministry website telling people to come here and vote Keep on these AfDs, and he also sent out numerous emails through Wikipedia to get people to come here and vote Keep. This all qualifies as an extreme abuse of process. I am asking for the Checkuser because Wiggins2 started doing the exact same thing Jason Gastrich had been doing, namely, spamming lots of different talk pages with requests to get people to come to the AfDs and vote keep. If you look at Wiggins2's contributions you will see that they are almost entirely AfD keep messages posted to various people's talk pages. Here is a full list of all of the AfDs that have been attacked by Jason Gastrich and his various sockpuppets and meat puppets:

    --Cyde Weys 18:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Tina M. Barber (talk · contribs) and 70.35.67.56 (talk · contribs)

    The registered user and the IP have both revealed personal information about other users on Talk:Shiloh Shepherd Dog. One victim of this has been stalked at his workplace. Because no action was undertaken when the personal information was revealed, he has quit wikipedia believing this was allowed. Another victim has now raised the possibility that 70.35.67.56 is Tina M. Barber not logged in. A positive check would show a repeated behaviour of revealing personal information, which means that an indefinite block might be in order. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 10:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser&oldid=36237039"