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
Essjay (talk | contribs)
21,413 edits
Essjay (talk | contribs)
21,413 edits
Line 43: Line 43:




===[[User:Gadolam]]===
* {{user|Gadolam}}
* {{user|Aucaman}}


[[User:Aucaman]] is on topical ban (from Iran-Persia articles) after his arbitation case [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman]] closed. He has returned with a "new" username with his first edit being on the topic of [[Persian Jews]], see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gadolam]. From his very first edit he is editing in the same style as Aucaman. --[[User:Kashk|''' - K a s h ''']]<sup>[[User_talk:Kashk|Talk]] | [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Emailuser/Kashk email]</sup> 16:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

* {{user|Gadolam}} is definitely {{user|Aucaman}}. The user might be, at least temporarily, logging in from a different IP network, to legitimize his "new" user-name before he returns to his usual IP address. But the the familiarity of this "new user" with wikipedia plus the identical pattern of editing all point to Aucaman. Also, please take note of the third paragraph of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Persian_Jews&diff=45543183&oldid=45529929 this comment] by '''Aucaman''' on 26 March 2006, which is later materialized as a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allahdad_incident&diff=prev&oldid=52458122 new article] by '''Gadolam''' upon "joining" Wikipedia on 10 May 2006. --[[User:ManiF|ManiF]] 22:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

'''Confirmed.''' <span style="font-family:Sans serif">[[User:Essjay|<font color="#7b68ee">'''Essjay'''</font>]] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>[[User talk:Essjay|<font color="#7b68ee">Talk</font>]] • [[User:Essjay/Contact|<font color="#7b68ee">Connect</font>]]</small>)</font></span> 06:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


===Is this an Iasson sock?===
===Is this an Iasson sock?===

Revision as of 09:00, 11 May 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}}


    Outstanding requests

    User:Lucky Mustard

    Explanation of request: There's a name dispute at Lieutenant Governor (Canada) and this new user suddenly popped up and moved the page when there is still discussion going on on the talk page. Ardenn 16:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I just signed up; I've no connection with the other user noted. And it appears that not everyone agrees with you. Lucky Mustard 18:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Having glanced at this, as I was recently involved in outing an editor who was using socks to evade editing restrictions, I'm quite stupefied by this request. First of all, this is a first for me. In addition, my interactions with the requestor (only recently) have been thoroughly unpleasant: as the above article's talk page exhibits, the requestor has made substandard edits and retrofitted articles without discussion or ignorant of prior ones to the contrary. He has also labelled my and other legitimate edits or corrections as vandalism ("rvv") when clearly they have not been. And I've not been the only one to question this editor's behaviour. Similarly, I and at least one other editor – and established, at that – dissent regarding the title of the above article.
    Essentially, this request is absurd. I have no affiliation whatsoever with Lucky Mustard. I always edit with my username, I generally edit from my home computer, and my ISP is a local university. Given A.'s escalatory behaviour and the above, this request should be dismissed.
    Relatedly, since a WP:RM has been logged regarding the above article, I will defer to a consensus regarding the article's title. Unequivocally, however, I will refrain from interacting with the requestor in perpetuity. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    RGLE is a small group, all things considered (2 relevant hits on Google, and that's about it), and, therefore, considering the number of editors listed above who are not only editing and reverting, but making the same types of edits and reversions, some of them, if not all, have to be the same individuals. MSJapan 14:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Regular Grand Lodge of England has had numerous valid requests for citation put on it a number of times, and after this notice was put in at 3RR Noticeboard, other accounts immediately pop up, avoiding 3rr issues. Vidkun 17:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]




    Is this an Iasson sock?

    KymeSnake edited Slavery in antiquity, using the same language and making the same claims, as Iasson.[1] As Macrakis remarks[2], this is exactly the same wording as the reverting anon on Douleia. Please confirm whether this is Iasson, who is banned. Septentrionalis 21:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Confirmed Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Martin Van Buren

    JRawle left a vandalism warning on User: Martin Van Buren. He then got a message from User: Blopij (here [3]) claiming that he and a couple of buddies were not vandalizing and asked to be unblocked. I'm unsure of what to think but if we know if the two are using the same IP then we could close this case. (here's the case [4]) (Here's another message sent by from our good buddy [5]) Cheers, Mahogany 16:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Confirmed; looks like it may well be a school IP, consider asking for a WP:ABUSE investigation. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 07:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    70.49.111.121

    All these users have been vandalizing the main page featured articles with the edit summary "Wikipedia Admin Alkivar's home phone number <phone number is here, removed for privacy>". Therefore, the recent featured articles have been protected. I am requesting this in order to block the IP, if it is the IP, and if it is the only IP used (no proxies). Prodego talk 02:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The Alikvar phone number vandal is using Bell Canada; the IPs are dynamic, and shared by legitimate contributors and admins. Where possible we have rangeblocked, but this is going to be a situation where contacting Bell Canada is the only option, and I strongly doubt they'll do much about it. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 07:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comicfan

    Same pattern of image-removal from comics-related articles as the series of anons from the 4.244.*.* range off-and-on for the past six months - are they the same user? SoM 23:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Inconclusive. 4.244.0.0/16 (That is, all the IPs in the 4.244.* range) is registered to Level 3 Communications, a very large provider; additionally, this is a block of about 65,000 addresses. Comicfan is using the 4.244.0.0/16 Level 3 range, but as I said, that is a very large range, and making a conclusion based on being in a pool with 65,000 other addresses is sketchy at best. It is likely that if they have the same editing style they are the same person, however, without a more specific range inside the /16, it is not possible to have a conclusive result. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 07:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Prin

    The repeat offender Prin (talk · contribs) has returned with a new set of sock puppets. He was already banned for using the following sock puppets: Cumbi (talk · contribs), Jathu (talk · contribs), R.Madhavan (talk · contribs), The Man's Plans (talk · contribs) and Yellow (talk · contribs). He has begun reverting Ajith article again in the same style as before using his templates. He is uploading images violating copyrights. He edits the user page of his puppets signing interchangeably. He has sent me hate mail from the above IP address - a copy of which I can forward to any email address if need be. He has blanked the 40-odd copyright notices from his talk page and added his name to admin request.

    He has tried atleast once to tamper with this request itself for user check like this on this very page. Please take action. Anwar saadat 11:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Confirmed. Benzee is Naan_Kadavul a/k/a 81.157.165.7 a/k/a 81.129.220.151 a/k/a several other similar IP addresses. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 07:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    KJKruse

    AI has a indefinate ban in place as explained at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI. He was also specifically restricted to one account. I am certain that a checkuser of KJKruse will reveal that this person is AI and posting from Hawaii. The KJKruse account was created to harass me because AI believes K.J. Kruse to be my real name. Since he was banned from editing on Wikipedia he could not use his own account to make his edits. Vivaldi (talk) 04:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Inconclusive; there are no IP records for AI for us to check against. I suggest bringing it to the attention of the Arbitration Committee; they may have old IP records on file that can be used to check against the current user. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 07:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Digi Wiki

    Suspected new embodiment of anon puppetteer from User:Mikkalai/arkven#Alphabetic list `'mikka (t) 03:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Confirmed. Additionally, there appears to be an account Dikgi Wiki as well that is related. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 07:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, there appear to be two legitimate contributors using the same IPs; I can't tell at the moment if they are actually legit, or if they are sleeper accounts. Keep reporting new suspected socks as you find them. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 07:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Suspected socks at Vlachs of Serbia

    They revert war attacking Greier. --62.57.67.224 13:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Greier (talk · contribs) is probably a sockpuppet of the permabanned Bonaparte (talk · contribs). —Khoikhoi 14:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note that I have a personal contact with two apparent distinct users User:Aldux and User:Telex, for months now. Unless the "suspected socks" are language freaks, I can't understand how someone can be speaking 8 or so languages fluently and simultaneously... Finally, take a look here and again here, and then read counter-attack and diversion... NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 14:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined. I see no basis for a checkuser, and unless I'm misreading the two individuals above, there is no user supporting the request. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 08:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Suspected socks at Talk:Iranian peoples

    This is currently a vote going on at Talk:Iranian peoples, as to whether to include a certain ethinc group. I highly suspect that the last 2 users are sockpuppets of the above anons, not sure which one is which however. Both of the last 2 users only have 2 edits - one to their user page, and one to Talk:Iranian peoples. I suspect that these users are using sockpuppetry to get what they want. —Khoikhoi 04:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Note this may be a case of meatpuppetry rather than sockpuppetry. See my comments here: [6]. Lukas (T.|@) 07:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Confirmed in part. 203.48.45.194 = Persian Magi = Gharib Ghorbati. 59.167.0.169 does not appear to be involved at all; there are no users editing from that IP. Babak Kamkar also appears to be legitimate; s/he is editing from an entirely different hemisphere than the others. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 08:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Deathrocker

    Deathrocker is suspected of using socks to violate core policys on the Children of Bodom article [7]. Deathrocker has a known history of using sockpuppets, his most recent one month block for using the sock puppet Comment to disrupt and vandalise the ANI board. Other cases have been shown including the bragging of using anons to vandalise UserPages of Admins and Users that have blocked or been in content disputes with him.

    Deathrocker is also currently held in a arbirrition case [8], his second arbirrition case for the harrassment of users using socks and vandalism. The user has been noted by admins Idont, Tony and Sceptre as baiting me [9], and has been warned by sceptre for Incivilty and Personal Attacks [10].

    Deathrocker has also used the anons in several instances of Wikilawyering on the ArbCom case. The first instance was to have the case annulled, when this failed, he tried to have Sceptre's admin powers revoked, and when this failed, attempted to have me banned from Wikipedia so that my statement doesnt count.

    We request this check user to see if Deathrocker is using the anons to bait people into violating paroles and policys and to violate core policys himself, and if he is, so this can recorded as evidence in his Arbirrition Case. If he isnt, then the user can be dealt with seperatly with no recourse upon Deathrocker. Ley Shade 02:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Neither the anons nor Mike are me. This user is the only person who has suspect that I'm any of these people... Leyasu violated his ArbCom parole, claiming one of the anons first post was "vandalism" and threatened him or her [11]

    Leyasu has recently been warned about Labeling good faith edits as "vandalism" yet he continued to do so in relation to this noob, I'd take this users words with a pinch of salt, they have a history of causing trouble on Wikipedia [12] shows the user has 6 violations of ArbCom parole.

    Recently this user was found guilty of using several sockpuppets to edit articles while blocked. user:Idont_Havaname, user:Deiz and Tony and others are here discussing Leyasu's use of sockpuppets [13] which were used to attack users and revert articles while Leyasu was banned. [14]

    Check the history of the anons, non of them edit the ArbCom case against myself, this is a deception by Leyasu (who is well known for that). Leyasu is commiting Slander on this very page, my ArbCom case is because I reported a sock that had a similar IP to ones already found to be Leyasu. I'm not there because of "harassment", "using socks" and "vandalism"... here are clear personal attacks by Leyasu, claiming that I'm a "vandal"... this is slander, this is against the law and Wikipedia policies.

    I will however, notify this Mike guy about this latest attack by Leyasu, and see if we can get him here for comment.

    (Note - the DeathrockerComment account was not a "sock" an admin allowed me to use it over a month ago, after a comment was needed on a case, check the archives I do not have a "history of using socks".. though Leyasu has been found guilty of using of using numerous socks before [15]) - Deathrocker 07:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    (Note - Mike5193 is not a sock. I am Michael Lyons, and I dont know who the the other guy is. Leyasu is confused or something. Bye bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike5193 (talk • contribs)

    Inconclusive. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    JuliannaRoseMauriello

    • This user claims to be the star of a popular children's television series, Lazytown. Their editing was perfectly helpful at the beginning, as they helped bring attention to the private content included. Recently, this user has taken it upon themselves to edit more controversially, on topics outside their realm of expertise. All that is asked is that we confirm or deny that this editor has edited from New York state (where she has attended school), California (where she attended the Daytime Emmys), or Iceland (where her series films). -- Zanimum 14:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined. The user has been blocked indefinately; personal information (such as location) is only released when the privacy policy specifically allows it, and I don't see where this case fits. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 08:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:VaughanWatch redux

    YoungWebster has been making highly biased edits to some of the same articles disputed by the whole VW crowd (note, for example, allegations at Susan Kadis that the Thornhill Times folded "due to lack of interest in its excessively partisan approach"), and 64.228.149.67's only known WP contribution to date was to my talk page, again accusing the editor who reverted that comment from Kadis' article of being a sockpuppet of User:pm_shef, which seems to be their favourite new tactic of late. I reluctantly understand if you guys want to wash your hands of the whole thing at this point, but I also can't really block either of them without more solid evidence than I have. Bearcat 02:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Given the extent of VW's proven sock puppetry, would it be appropriate to simply ban new suspected accounts (based on their edit behavior) based on community consensus at AN/I (or is that against policy)? Thatcher131 13:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I'd say you're on pretty safe ground there. Mackensen (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wouldn't be opposed to doing that if there's a clear consensus, but I'm reluctant to act unilaterally in that regard. As much as possible, I'd prefer to act on solid evidence; barring that I still wouldn't be comfortable editblocking unless one or two other administrators actually looked at their edit histories and agreed with my assessment. Given the way I was targeted for attack by the VW brigade throughout the whole mess, I'm really not willing to act without backup. Bearcat 00:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Confirmed. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 08:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lightbringer, aka User:Fyodor Dos, User:JKWithers, and a host of other socks, particularly including Jake the wiki (talk · contribs).

    User:Jake the wiki follows the edit pattern of Long Term Abuser: Lightbringer who was banned from editing any article relating to Freemasonry. A supposedly new user, who immediately heads to Freemasonry related articles and shows extensive knowledge of the edit history and controvercies of the articles in question. He has specific areas that he attacks: statements that Freemasonry is not a secret society, any mention of Freemasons being killed in the Holocaust, any refutation of religious criticisms. He hides his attacks behind misleading edit summaries (in this case, picking up on legitimate concerns by other editors that the article is too long and that certain sections should be summarized). See: this edit, and those immediately prior to it. When asked to discuss his edits on the talk page, he did post a topic header on the subject, (see: Introduction section of talk page) but his responce to criticism was to claim that his changes are blocked by a "cabal" of Masonic editors (the fact that he ascerts this when, as a new user, he has not experienced such blocking is yet another example of typical Lightbringer behavior). he ends his reply with the Religious POV statement: "Masonry was defeated at Calvary", which also fits the Lightbringer mode. Finally, several Lightbringer socks have used IP addresses from Shaw Communications in BC, Canada. Examples include:

    User:Jake the wiki used the IP address User:24.64.223.203 for one of his edits here. I ran a check, and that is also a Shaw Communications address. Blueboar 17:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC) Merging this in from above -- Essjay (Talk • Connect) 08:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Lightbringer is banned by ArbCom from editing articles relating to Freemasonry, and so far this new editor has done only that. See also Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Lightbringer Ardenn 02:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Up to his usual POV agenda bashing. He also seems to be using the IP: User:24.64.223.203. Note the use of the term "Masonic Editors" in his complaints (especially in the edit summaries). This is typical. There is another Check user request on him below. Blueboar 23:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Confirmed; Jake the wiki is Lightbringer. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 08:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined requests

    Big.P

    First IP puppet admits common identity with Big.P here: User talk:71.132.154.106. Both IP's try to influence an AfD, which was nominated by Big.P, here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiwi Alejandro Camara. I am not sure why I was directed to this page, since his sockpuppetry is admitted at least as to the first IP. I also opened a case here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Big.p. Finally, there have been numerous personal attacks against me by this user, on the AfD page, on my talk and on his talk [19]. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 20:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Completed requests

    User:190 Proof

    I have stuck my neck right out by blocking 190 Proof indefinitely. His user page, his talk page, his edits, his edit summaries are all chock full of abuse, obscenity, and hate speech towards Muslims. The depth of 190 Proof's hatred and anger really comes across in his contribution history, and it is blatantly obvious that he is unwilling and possibly unable to reign in his emotions to write from a neutral point of view. I have extended an invitation to him to appeal his block if and when he is willing to conform to WP:NPOV and WP:V.

    I have no idea if my actions are in accordance with policy, but I'm damned sure they're good for the encyclopaedia. If you guys disagree with my actions after reviewing 190 Proof's contributions, then of course I am prepared to have the block overturned. Snottygobble 03:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Checkuser confirms that 190 Proof is a sockpuppet of user Enviroknot, banned by the Arbitration Commitee. While Snottygobble obviously didn't know this at the time, the block should stand, as the account is a sockpuppet of a banned user being used to evade the ban. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 04:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Waffleknocka / Executor-usa

    I suspect that these are the same user, though I'm not sure which is the sock and which the puppet. Executor-USA was banned for legal threats and should have been banned for vandalising the article OITC fraud (currently deleted, though a ongoing deletion review is likely to result in the article being recreated at a less POV name). At the same time, Waffleknocka created a POV fork (now also deleted) of the deleted article, plus a related article which I'm nominating for deletion. Both users have the same writing style and an apparently identical agenda. I suspect that Waffleknocka is a sock of Executor-USA. I believe that we are likely to see more vandalism/threats from this source if and when the disputed article is recreated, and in advance of that I'd like to confirm whether we do in fact have a sockpuppet issue here. -- ChrisO 12:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've discovered that Waffleknocka is/has been using an open proxy server in Cambodia (which I've now blocked indefinitely). I'd be interested to know if Executor-USA is also using an open proxy. Could whoever runs CheckUser please also Google the IP address that it produces to see whether it's on any proxy lists? -- ChrisO 10:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. Nothing showed up. He's been unbanned, incidentally. Mackensen (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    AngelBC

    Made this edit from an apparent \'\'\'backslashing\'\'\' proxy. Please determine the IP address used for that edit and block indefinitely. — May. 8, '06 [09:01] <freakofnurxture|talk>


    Proteus

    Proteus strongly opposed a guideline not to use honorifics. The Le baron account has been used to repeatedly add honorifics to a vast number of articles despite repeated requests to stop. Arniep 13:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Absolutely not. You've made this accusation elsewhere, and it's completely unfounded. Le baron is not a sockpuppet of Proteus, nor of anyone else I can find. Proteus is a Wikipedian in good standing, and is not using sockpuppets. I feel compelled to insist that you stop this ridiculous witchhunt. Mackensen (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it was very inappropriate for you to check when you have shown hostility to my position on the very issue above. Arniep 17:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought you might. My hostility comes from the request. It so happens that I've been active here the last few days. I'll go ahead and grab some other folks to double-check, but they'll tell you the same thing. Mackensen (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I will be taking this to the admin noticeboard as users shouldn't be attacked for requesting check user. Arniep 17:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me clarify that by absolutely not I mean that they are aboslutely not the same person. Mackensen (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Confirmed: this is about as clear a negative as you can get. No chance these are the same person. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said on the pump I didn't believe check user would show anything, it is quite easy to be seen to be two continents apart yet be editing in two different browsers on the same PC. Arniep 17:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And you can't prove that I'm not the Queen of England, either. Unless you've got some evidence to support this rather remarkable accusation, take it somewhere else. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser&oldid=52632494"