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
Nescio (talk | contribs)
11,956 edits
rm personal attack, can an admin intervene please?
Nescio stop trying to hide the truth about your sockpuppet activites
Line 133: Line 133:


:I would like to add {{checkip|69.46.20.59}} to this RFCU-list as possible sockpuppet of Merecat/Rex. Reason is the absolutely odious RFCU above in which this "new" user acuses me. Odious since this users second edit is this RFCU, yet he is very familiar with the ''rationale'' article and the heated debate between Merecat and Prometheuspan. And like Merecat he calls this user a sockpuppet and a troll. Sounds like Merecat to me.[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]]<font color="green"> [[User:Nescio|Nomen Nescio]]</font><sup><font color="blue">[[User talk:Nescio|Gnothi seauton]]</font></sup> 21:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:I would like to add {{checkip|69.46.20.59}} to this RFCU-list as possible sockpuppet of Merecat/Rex. Reason is the absolutely odious RFCU above in which this "new" user acuses me. Odious since this users second edit is this RFCU, yet he is very familiar with the ''rationale'' article and the heated debate between Merecat and Prometheuspan. And like Merecat he calls this user a sockpuppet and a troll. Sounds like Merecat to me.[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]]<font color="green"> [[User:Nescio|Nomen Nescio]]</font><sup><font color="blue">[[User talk:Nescio|Gnothi seauton]]</font></sup> 21:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Nescio is a likely troll or provocateur. He has previously been caught red handed using sockpuppets and trying to blame his sockpuppet edits on others see this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:80.220.222.68&oldid=56842751] [[User:69.46.20.59|69.46.20.59]] 17:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


I'll just point out that Mr. Tibbs's accusation against Rex071404 is '''false'''. Rex071404 is '''not''' "permanently banned". Rather, he is currently blocked and falsely so. He's accused of being a sockpuppet of Merecat, but as the ArbCom history against Rex shows, Rex himself is not a sockpuppet. As for Merecat, he was blocked by Katefan0 (who has since quit the wiki) as being a likely sockpuppet of Rex. So basically, what we have here is Mr. Tibbs, trying to false slander two new users Neutral Arbiter and Wombdpsw. And for what reason? Neither of those uses are disruptive editors and neither of them have transgressed any standard wiki rules or any of the special restrictions that apply to Rex. Suffice it to say, Mr. Tibbs is clearly on a fishing trip, trying to attack a couple of editors for no justifiable reason. I suggest that Mr. Tibbs is a POV warrior trying to stymie these new users because they have made edits which Mr. Tibbs resents. Also, the so-called "5th" ArbCom case against Rex was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=56357068&oldid=56356653 '''rejected'''] and interestingly enough, while considering that potential case, [[User:Mindspillage]] said "I'm not actually opposed to banned users coming back in such a way that we can't tell who they are because they're not editing disruptively...". I see no evidence that Neutral Arbiter or Wombdpsw are being disruptive. Nor is there any demonstrated allegation that Rex appears to be using them to circumvent. Any plain reading of the [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser_Policy CheckUser Policy] makes clear that the type of vendetta that Nescio and Mr. Tibbs seem to be on against Rex071404 should not be enabled by allowing them to make these inquiries. However, if they were to be allowed then both Nescio and Mr. Tibbs ought to be scrutinized very carefully themselves. Also Prometheuspan. Optimally though, Mr. Tibbs inquiries here should be rejected as being a fishing trip. [[User:69.46.20.59|69.46.20.59]] 23:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll just point out that Mr. Tibbs's accusation against Rex071404 is '''false'''. Rex071404 is '''not''' "permanently banned". Rather, he is currently blocked and falsely so. He's accused of being a sockpuppet of Merecat, but as the ArbCom history against Rex shows, Rex himself is not a sockpuppet. As for Merecat, he was blocked by Katefan0 (who has since quit the wiki) as being a likely sockpuppet of Rex. So basically, what we have here is Mr. Tibbs, trying to false slander two new users Neutral Arbiter and Wombdpsw. And for what reason? Neither of those uses are disruptive editors and neither of them have transgressed any standard wiki rules or any of the special restrictions that apply to Rex. Suffice it to say, Mr. Tibbs is clearly on a fishing trip, trying to attack a couple of editors for no justifiable reason. I suggest that Mr. Tibbs is a POV warrior trying to stymie these new users because they have made edits which Mr. Tibbs resents. Also, the so-called "5th" ArbCom case against Rex was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=56357068&oldid=56356653 '''rejected'''] and interestingly enough, while considering that potential case, [[User:Mindspillage]] said "I'm not actually opposed to banned users coming back in such a way that we can't tell who they are because they're not editing disruptively...". I see no evidence that Neutral Arbiter or Wombdpsw are being disruptive. Nor is there any demonstrated allegation that Rex appears to be using them to circumvent. Any plain reading of the [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser_Policy CheckUser Policy] makes clear that the type of vendetta that Nescio and Mr. Tibbs seem to be on against Rex071404 should not be enabled by allowing them to make these inquiries. However, if they were to be allowed then both Nescio and Mr. Tibbs ought to be scrutinized very carefully themselves. Also Prometheuspan. Optimally though, Mr. Tibbs inquiries here should be rejected as being a fishing trip. [[User:69.46.20.59|69.46.20.59]] 23:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:29, 4 June 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}}


    This page has a backlog that requires attention of one or more users with CheckUser permissions.
    (please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared up)


    Note: Individuals making requests must check back regularly. The role of checkusers is to report findings; it is the responsibility of the individual making the request to see that appropriate action is taken.

    Outstanding Requests

    User:Bookmain / User:HansAntel / User:AliceDeGrey / User:HeadleyDown

    I am a mentor on the Neuro-linguistic programming. The above 4 seem to be working together to try to get around the restrictions put upon them by the NLP arbcom decision. Essentially, one of the non affected people is reverting and then the affected people are editing. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. --Woohookitty(meow) 09:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Chakabuh / Newssourceusa / Qed-news

    Several user accounts and IP addresses have recently vandalized articles related to email spam fighters -- people and organizations that track down and stop spammers. Vandalized articles include The Spamhaus Project, Steve Linford, and SPEWS. User:Chakabuh has been trying to insert libellous claims into Brian J. Bruns and may be the same person.

    The user in question is probably affiliated with spammers, and may be abusing Wikipedia for other purposes (e.g. to promote a spam business). There may be other puppets I've missed above, too. --FOo 04:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Did some Googleling/whois/traceroutes/calls. 166.70.177.1 appears to be based out of Salt Lake City, Utah (it looks like a library if the rdns is to be believed). The comment in the edit 166.70.177.1 made to the page on me is very very close style/wording wise to what Barbara Schwarz posts on usenet. However, as far as I know, she has been banned from the SLC Public Library, so it may be a sockpuppet or similar.Brian 19:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This address has vandalized the Spamhaus article and put ads for spamming servies on Bullet proof hosting, an article describing ISPs that host spammers. Possibly part of the same crew. --FOo 20:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Lutherian

    Lutherian is currently blocked for trolling at Talk:Armenian Genocide. All of a sudden 83.77.132.16 pops up, with the exact same sarcastic tone of voice as Lutherian to continue a "discussion" with another user. Both Lutherian and the anon almost always end their sentences with either an exclamation point or "LOL". (same with 81.62.128.110 & 83.79.98.206) I have no doubts that L is evading his block. —Khoikhoi 23:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    RichardMalter

    Possible attempts to circumvent a block [1][2], as well as a gentlemen's agreement that all editors in the discussion page [3][4] agreed to (refraining from any non-consensus changes to article), including this user. Thanks for checking. Crum375 22:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking back, also possible use of IP 203.220.167.134 for anon 'unexplained edits' [5] subsequently reverted by Will Beback. Crum375 22:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Why did you put this checkuser reqeuest at the end of the list? New requests are supposed to be at the top of the list. Kevin_b_er 00:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake - thanks for catching it and helping. Hopefully we can still get this checkuser info in a timely manner nonetheless. Thanks, Crum375 11:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Prometheuspan

    This user made a huge editing mess at Rationales to impeach George W. Bush and has now taken to calling wikipedia "evil" on Jimbo's talk page. [6] He was recently blocked for 3RR and I am pretty sure he is a sockpuppet vandal. He may be BigDaddy or perhaps he is User:Nescio. Likely he's a troll or banned user. 69.46.20.59 21:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I would suggest to delete this frivolous accusation that clearly is a response to the RFCU against suspected socks of a disruptive user.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 22:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering your Checkuser request hasn't been completed on this IP, I think you are over stepping the grounds for having anything removed. Its valid unless the user is proven to be a sockpuppet. --zero faults |sockpuppet| 00:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mr. Tibbs

    Please check User:Añoranza and User:Mr. Tibbs. Both of these editors are agressive POV warriors at Iraq War and 2003 invasion of Iraq. Mr. Tibbs was recently blocked for 3RR and I am reasonably sure that this is the same editor splitting his edits between users to game the 3RR system. Also suspected with this is User:Nescio. 69.46.20.59 20:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    comment I also support a look into this as these editors seem to work in concert to get their edits across. I do not know if they are the same person, or they simply just manage to always want the others opinion voiced. If you followed Iraq War and 2003 invasion of Iraq you will often see one user reaching their 3RR limit, then another coincidentally pops on to Wikipedia and reverts it back to the other users. Its almost as if they are at least working in tandem off wiki to maintain their edits, perhaps circumventing it via AIM discussions or emails, so I wouldnt call the RCU above a bad faith one as I would be willing to submit one. I will lay out why below:
    Incident# 1
    Anoranza's edit was changed by Wom [7]
    Mr. Tibbs reverts back to Anoranza's version [8]


    Incident #2
    I zer0faults made some edits and Mr. Tibbs reverts them. [9] I then revert his revert because he doesnt even state a reason. [10] Then arrives Anoranza to revert mine. [11] I revert Anoranza and in comes Nescio to readd what Anoranza had put in earlier.[12] Later the same day I reside to just editing their work and not reverting and back comes Mr. Tibbs to revert back to Nescio's version, removing my edits. [13] Wombdpsw makes some edits again. Nescio steps in and reverts his work citing some discussed version which I could not find. [14] Wombdpsw reverts him back [15] and then appears Mr. Tibbs to revert back to Nescio [16]
    Anoranza steps in and makes some edits along the same lines as Nescio and Mr. Tibbs and then I revert back to Wombdpsw since I feel Anoranza's edits are putting too much into the overview and causing undue weight. [17] Anoranza reverts back with no summary. [18] I revert asking for a summary or justification. [19] Anoranza reverts again calling my information "lame." [20] I rewrite the 2nd paragraph. [21] Anoranza puts it back without citing it as revert. [22] I revert again warning Anoranza about 3RR. [23] Nescio then appears and reverts back to Anoranza's. [24]
    Anoranza then puts her version back without citing it as a revert, she just took the entire 2nd paragraph that was being reverted before and plopped it back [25] after it was removed to war rationale, she then removes the head and other parts. [26] [27] So its once again the paragraph she originally had, her reason is that it overlaps with a below section, which would make sense cause the whole paragraph is located there. After me and Amibidhrohi add some information Mr Tibbs comes and puts the paragraph back to how Anoranza had it. [28]
    I shorten the paragarph because at this point its almost entirely mentioned in war rationale section , then Mr. Tibbs comes and reverts the entire paragraph again [29] back to Anoranza's version.


    Oddly enough on the 30th neither Anoranza nor Mr Tibbs edit the article. We even have a very odd edit by Mr. Tibbs on Template:War_on_Terrorism where he had not be previously involved in discussions. He reverts back to Anoranza's version of the article, [30] I revert and ask him to participate on talk [31] where its already being discussed, and he reverts back to Anoranza's version again stating "No one needs to pander to a filibuster." [32] which is odd because there is no relevant survey on the template war on terrorism talk page, did he revert the wrong article 2x? After this he never reappeared on that template page again.
    If you look at the history of that page oddly enough the only other time he made an article edit was on the 18th of May, once again reverting me. [33]
    In closing I support this checkuser request, perhaps as I said they are just talking on AIM to make sure there edits stay in place and they arent in fact the same user. Just odd how they always agree with eachother and revert back to one another, then all vote to have people checkuser'd as well. --zero faults talk 16:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest to delete yet another frivolous accusation that clearly is a response to the RFCU against suspected socks (this anon) of a disruptive user.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 22:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You do know this anon isnt even in the same state as the other anon you asked for a CUser of and neither are in Texas ... Frivolous would be RFCU being used as a means of interogation against anyone who supports merecat/rex or posts opposing views on the impeach bush article. Perhaps more evidence then the person uses "lets keep it NPOV" is in order before RFCU's are issued. --zero faults |sockpuppet| 23:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You have of course seen that the new IP's fall within the known range of Rex/Tex IP's?Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 23:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    They are not even on the same ISP, nor the same state. Do a ARIN lookup or a Reverse DNS for yourself. Oddly enough this wouldnt really prove much still cause I can use my girlfriends computer to frame Mr. Tibbs if I wanted cause we are in the same state same ISP. That is why RFCU is not a fishing expedition you have to have some credible proof. Them using a "keep it NPOV" summary is not proof, its a pretty common passive agressive summary on Wikipedia. --zero faults |sockpuppet| 00:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rbdz29

    This user and IP addres keeps vandalising or adding independant research to the Fred Meyer and Fred G. Meyer page. Both this IP address and user insert the same misinformation on a constant basis. The IP address has already been blocked once. Hypernick1980 09:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rex071404/User:Merecat

    After doing a brief analysis of these users' edits at User:Phr's request,[34] it appears to me that User:Neutral arbiter and User:Wombdpsw are sockpuppets of Rex/Merecat who were both permanently banned for evading prior arbcomm resolutions. A previous noticeboard post by User:Nescio resulted in the suggestion of running a RFCU[35] and User:Phr also made a noticeboard post[36] regarding this. It needs to be known if these new users are sockpuppets of Rex/Merecat so the remedies (particularly remedy 2) from Rex's 4th and last arbitration case can be enforced.[37] There is also an RfAr[38][39] and a Request for clarification[40] up about this user. -- Mr. Tibbs 07:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to add 69.46.20.59 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) to this RFCU-list as possible sockpuppet of Merecat/Rex. Reason is the absolutely odious RFCU above in which this "new" user acuses me. Odious since this users second edit is this RFCU, yet he is very familiar with the rationale article and the heated debate between Merecat and Prometheuspan. And like Merecat he calls this user a sockpuppet and a troll. Sounds like Merecat to me.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 21:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Nescio is a likely troll or provocateur. He has previously been caught red handed using sockpuppets and trying to blame his sockpuppet edits on others see this [41] 69.46.20.59 17:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll just point out that Mr. Tibbs's accusation against Rex071404 is false. Rex071404 is not "permanently banned". Rather, he is currently blocked and falsely so. He's accused of being a sockpuppet of Merecat, but as the ArbCom history against Rex shows, Rex himself is not a sockpuppet. As for Merecat, he was blocked by Katefan0 (who has since quit the wiki) as being a likely sockpuppet of Rex. So basically, what we have here is Mr. Tibbs, trying to false slander two new users Neutral Arbiter and Wombdpsw. And for what reason? Neither of those uses are disruptive editors and neither of them have transgressed any standard wiki rules or any of the special restrictions that apply to Rex. Suffice it to say, Mr. Tibbs is clearly on a fishing trip, trying to attack a couple of editors for no justifiable reason. I suggest that Mr. Tibbs is a POV warrior trying to stymie these new users because they have made edits which Mr. Tibbs resents. Also, the so-called "5th" ArbCom case against Rex was rejected and interestingly enough, while considering that potential case, User:Mindspillage said "I'm not actually opposed to banned users coming back in such a way that we can't tell who they are because they're not editing disruptively...". I see no evidence that Neutral Arbiter or Wombdpsw are being disruptive. Nor is there any demonstrated allegation that Rex appears to be using them to circumvent. Any plain reading of the CheckUser Policy makes clear that the type of vendetta that Nescio and Mr. Tibbs seem to be on against Rex071404 should not be enabled by allowing them to make these inquiries. However, if they were to be allowed then both Nescio and Mr. Tibbs ought to be scrutinized very carefully themselves. Also Prometheuspan. Optimally though, Mr. Tibbs inquiries here should be rejected as being a fishing trip. 69.46.20.59 23:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this more than elaborate copy of arguments Merecat has presented on numerous pages, makes it very likely this anon is Merecat/Rex. As for fishing expedition, the two bad faith RFCU's filed by this user are of course a prime example.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 00:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    And yet another 216.22.26.46 (talk · contribs) is starting a campaign to unblock poor Merecat/Rex. Please include this too.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 09:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Addendum: suspected sock 69.46.20.59 (talk · contribs)starts making accusations I am a sock[42][43][44][45] right after Mr Zero was asked if he is one. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 16:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok are you trying to blame this on me? This is getting out of hand, it should be noted that the link the anon user is pasting everywhere, an action I do not support, is to Nescio attempting to frame two users [46] while under an anon ip, he posts with his IP, then comes and edits it with his userlogin. An IP that is infact in Amsterdam tracing back to Nescio obviously which has already stated he is in Amsterdam. I am stating so Ryan doesnt feel like accusing me without proof, that this is not me. I have already provided my IP to combat the baseless accusations. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This has to stop, everyone who opposes Nescio & Mr. Tibbs end up on this list. That above IP is from Washington, the 69 one is from Florida yet you claim Merecat is from Texas. Just stop this campaign already. These check user's are being used to intimidate people, they have already accused 4 people that have either went against their views or asked for a review of merecats case. I too want a review as rex is banned as being a sock puppet of merecat and is the older user, a ban that makes no sense. there is already a RfC going against them regarding merecat and the only reason they know he exists is cause he opposed their view. This is starting to be a wich hunt. they have accused TBeatty, Cal Burratino, Wombdpsw, Neutral Arbiter. There evidence in some cases is that the user typed "keep it NPOV" which is a common term here. An admin needs to stop in and say this has gone on far enough. None of these users are even in the same state! --zero faults talk 12:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Zer0, just to avoid inappropriate accusations, and in light of your instruction to 'gather proof' about your identity, I'll just ask you outright - are you also Rex/Merecat? I, like others, am noticing parallels in your editing behavior, topics of choice, etc. and ask you respectfully. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone who opposes this group gets lumped in, I think I have made my point. How about you fully layout your evidence as is necessary for a RFCU, instead of asking. You say there are parrallels, I think the people who judge these RFCU's have a right to know what you consider evidence. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There are numerous remarkable things, but frankly, if you say you are not his sock we will have to accept this is simply coincidence. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 13:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Post the evidence so the ones who handle RFCU's can see what you call evidence. Neutral Arbiter and Wombdpsw have stated they are not merecat, going to stop supporting the RFCU's against them since they said they arent? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I've made your point - it's good to see you again, Rex. Exhausting the community's patience is a very pathetic thing to do with your life - why not join a sports league or plant a garden? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am taking your accusations as a personal attack, one with which you refuse to post any sort of evidence. As I have told Nescio, you can always issue a RFCU against me if you like. However you would have to show your "evidence" then to get it approved and the people who do RFCU's will see what kind of conclusions it is you draw. In other words, if you have "proof" present it, else stop accusing me. WP:CIVIL --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    More drama. I asked you a simple, easily-answered question - unless the answer is 'yes'. Telling someone to 'gather proof' while you are intentionally being evasive is plainly disruption of WP. I've not accused you of anything. The pathetic squeals of trolls speak for themselves. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no deception in not answering an unfounded accusation. This is RFCU, there is a policy, you need to present proof, quit your fishing expedition. You have just discredited this whole RFCU and proven as I stated that users are using this to intimidate others. Please see WP:PA as you have now called me "pathetic" and "troll" without warrant.--zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I call your evasion pathetic. I believe you are, in the behavior you have demonstrated, another sock of the banned and disruptive troll Rex (and yes, his behavior is indeed pathetic). -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    More unfounded accusations, do you realize how bad you are making this RFCU seem? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    More Rexian drama. I call your evasion pathetic. I believe you are, in the behavior you have demonstrated, another sock of the banned and disruptive troll Rex (and yes, his behavior is indeed pathetic). And when I say pathetic, I mean that completely - for a user to devote these years and years, so much time, to conduct such an unbroken and relentless campaign of disruption and deception on the Wikipedia must mean Rex have a very sad interior life. I see that as a pathetic way to exist. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You are piling on personal attacks in a forum for administrators to read, do you have no regard for Wikipedia policy? I ask you to stop, and to stop making accusations toward me. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You cannot make something so by repetition. I have not accused you. I have asked you, you have evaded the question, and I have concluded you are Rex. If you're not Rex, you shouldn't view my comments as a personal attack ('cause you're not Rex, right?). -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    By that logic you can run around calling people derogatory terms and say they should not be insulted unless they themselves feel that term is correct. Sorry but that would also seem to erode the basis of WP:PA, would it not? Anyway an admin will review your actions when they arrive, good Ryan, as I said you have basically turned this RFCU isnt nothing more but an obvious intimidation tactic by adding my name to the list. Perhaps if you did your research you would see why I couldn't be merecat, but instead you have your "evidence" which you have not presented and is required by RFCU policy. Congrats on ruining Mr. Tibbs RFCU. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You have generously provided all the evidence required. Have a lovely day and next time, consider honestly answering the question. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I want an apology for your accusations that you have now admitted were false, then you can have a nice day. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You do not deserve an apology (though I would be happy to offer one if you did), I have not admitted anything I said was false and now you are plainly lying. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Evidence regarding self proclaimed sock Zer0faults (talk · contribs)

    • This user is oddly familiar with everything Merecat and other socks (some I did not know of but he does!) have done, he even felt the need to comment on his RfC[47] rather coincidental to choose this RfC for a new and uninvolved user.
    • He still has not explained the unusual obsession[48] with know disruptive and banned sock Merecat.
    • His almost identical style in having a monologue,[49][50][51] not answering questions, the topics he edits,[52][53] the need to implicate other users while evading question regarding his own behaviour, as evidenced by his comments here and other pages.

    81.208.62.251 16:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this users edits [54] speak for themselves. I would like to point out that they use the "self proclaimed sockpuppet" comment much like Nescio does. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is why more then he uses a summary is in order when providing proof. If you ping the IP you can see the user is in Italy and Nescio is in Holland. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ryan travels to Italy frequently. He says so on his user page. And how is this above IP editor so familiar with everything if he's not Ryan? Ryan's obviously using PC Anywhere to another computer in Italy controlled by his friends/family. That's how he's editing from Italy an dhome at the same time. Or, he's in Italy now. Someone should ask him. 69.46.20.59 17:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Merecat you just outed yourself again, stop being disruptive. Let's see what this RfCU shows and then you can have your say. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 17:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Could it be because it is another user? Duh! Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 17:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That was the point of the post. To show that edit summaries are not valid justifications for accusations. Thank you for agreeing with me, once again try to read everything. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Self proclaimed? O yes the link you refuse to click and has been explained to you, more personal attacks, just horrible. If you arent Ryan then you may want to look above they already stated they were wrong. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So the evidence is I have stood up for merecat ... Good indepth analysis. Your other proof is I have refused to answer questions of the people who have accused me without proof? So your proof of me being something you accuse me of, is that I wont repond to your accusations that have no proof? I have been accused of circle logic but that takes the cake. Also I think we should add User:Nescio as he fills the quota of having edited Rationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush Terrorist_surveillance_program and the Iraq_War articles, showing his contributions to be inline with user:merecat as well. See the problem with that yet Nescio? If I accused you of being merecat you would fill all of your own justifications oddly enough. Considering I first ran into merecat on the Iraq War article, and Rangeley there and have since been battling with you and Mr. Tibbs on the status of that article, I think it just goes to show you the intent of this group. Intimidating other users into complicity. I offer my own IP for an ARIN lookup 74.64.40.102, Now that I have proven I am none of the states above, on a home cable connection and have no open socks proxies. I would like an apology. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Pantherarosa

    User:Abdulrahman_Jaffer_Al_Zadjali has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet; however, no admin was willing to make the call on who the puppet master was. User:Abdulrahman Jaffer Al Zadjali made two edits, one to his userpage and one to his talk page, and then began commenting on a WP:PAIN discussion on User:Melca, in which User:Pantherarosa had been invloved. Abdulrahman sided with Panthera in the debate. They have also both edited mainly the same articles, such as Reza Cyrus Pahlavi. As I said, the evidence is there but not overwhelming, and a CheckUser would help to alleviate doubt about who the master is and would perhaps present other sockpuppets being (ab)used. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    DreamGuy

    Recent suspected multiple subversion of 3RR at Beelzebub and Spring Heeled Jack, where DreamGuy and Victrix have been involved in edit wars on numerous occasions with numerous editors.

    Example 1: After Dreamguy reverted Beelzebub for the third time (revert 1, revert 2, revert 3), Victrix appeared out of nowhere to post a message of support on his talk page, then reverted the article to Dreamguy's preferred version, using a similar longwinded edit summary to those Dreamguy typically uses, phrased in almost exactly the same hostile manner.

    Example 2: After Victrix reverted Spring Heeled Jack for the third time (revert 1, revert 2, revert 3), DreamGuy appeared out of nowhere and reverted the article to Victrix' preferred version, again using the same longwinded edit summary to those Victrix typically uses, phrased in almost exactly the same hostile manner.

    A comparison of their edit histories reveals that Dreamguy and Victrix edit the same group of articles (particularly those related to the Victorian era, Jack the Ripper, crime and mythology), use the same lengthy edit summaries, the same terminology (ie "crap", "fucked up", "spam" etc when describing anything they disagree with), the same technique of accusing anyone who disagrees with them as "harrassing" them, and the same predisposition to conducting edit wars over content.

    They are obviously the same person using multiple identities with the deliberate intention of circumventing the 3RR and attempting to influence the outcome of talk page discussions. Centauri 02:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    CommentBoth have edited at similar times and periods. Both have been absent for prolonged periods at the same time as well, e.g. both DreamGuy and Victrix have been away from the early hours of June 1st, both also didn't edit from 13th onwards of may and both returned on 23 May 2006. Both use the same edit summaries and both step in to revert articles in order to avoid 3RR when nessessary. Both radily breach WP:PA. DreamGuy has a history of being blocked for breaching 3RR. Englishrose 10:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ed_Poor

    Serious edit war at Intelligent design between User:Ed Poor and the remaining editors, resulting in full protection of the page, 3RR violation report filed against Ed Poor and RFC filed against Ed Poor. Just after this all had started, User:LenW reinserted the last statement of Ed Poor, which was not a simple revert an other edit had taklen place to correct grammar errors [55]. Consequently, the suggestion of sockpuppetry has been brougt forward, and it might need to be established beyond doubt. Of course, this could be a coincidence and if this is insufficient for a checkuser, I understand. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Krabs502

    I'd like to see conclusively if these group of users are in fact the same. Also please take a look at User:216.83.121.194. Listed on WP:LTA, but still conducted many vandalistic edits. These include inserting incorrect details into articles, which make it very difficult to pick out any real edits he makes, ridiculous computer game articles based on Medical documentaries (see the history), and all together fake articles. This guy is making vandalistic edits on a daily basis, and yet nothing has yet been done about it. Confirmation is the first step. - Hahnchen 15:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    (Comment only) This category doesn't exist, and CheckUser is not for fishing. Stifle (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (Fixup) On June 2, 2006, the category was moved and deleted. It used to be this. Fixed to location in delete log. Kevin_b_er 08:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jo Mic

    The puppeteer of Jo_Mic (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is unknown, but this user's first edits were setting up an AfD for the NPOV policy, so I highly doubt they are a new user. New users tend not to have policy disputes, and for the minority that do, AfD is usually not something they know about. MSJapan 15:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:The Middle East Conflict Man

    A bunch of new suspected sock or meat puppets. The same edit style with inserting offensive images in the Socialism article. In eddit somments some of them said "no im not mid east conflict man" and "I'm not mid eats conflict man either!". Statements that both seems odd and hard to believe. // Liftarn 13:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lights out!'s contribs suggest that TMECM has realised that edits to articles other than Socialism can go unnoticed.--Nema Fakei 12:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kittyslasher

    Kittyslasher is currently blocked for vandalism/borderline trolling. Not only have they been talking to each other a lot, since 7 minutes after Kittyslasher's first edit, but Nintendude is the creator of Template:lowercase-Apple, a template that was deleted back in December. Seems inconspicuous, but Kittyslasher made the same template at Template:Iprefix, in May. Kittyslasher also already AfDed two things and commented in 4 others after just 10 days of being a user. Nintendude has been warned for mass-AfDing in violation of WP:POINT. They're also the only two users of {{MySpace2}}, a template that Kittyslasher created (and was deleted soon after). Kittyslasher added Category:Uncyclopedia into an article, which Nintendude created. They've also both screwed with redirects. Finally, they seem to be obsessed with feces. --Rory096 04:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    dokdo poll

    these new editors (& new ones continuing to pop up) have (albeit after the poll) voted, attempted to vote or influence the vote, or vandalized Talk:Dokdo, regarding renaming from Liancourt Rocks (after active discussion since may 16, RFC, & five days of unanimous voting supporting the move), all of the late oppose voters have no previous edit history, most with only single edit at the poll, with similar comments in non-native english. even with the poll over, the sockpuppets' misleading record will influence future discussion. Appleby 17:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    i'll withdraw this request, as things have cooled down there, & a backlog is building up here. although i suspect at least some of the above (and countless subsequent similar editors) are sockpuppets, there is something of an explanation at Talk:Dokdo for the flood of new japanese editors who were pointed to the subject talk page. Appleby 06:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is thought that many have a problem in your action.Objectman 07:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Not Clear - Nobs01 or TJive?

    An anonymous user 141.153.74.246 is editing in a pattern that suggests it may be the banned User:Nobs01, who is banned due to an Arbcom decision. I am not sure, and would like it checked. I believe User:Nobs01 has returned in the past under a variety of sockpuppets. User:TJive, who used to tag team edit with User:Nobs01, sent me an off-Wiki e-mail claiming to be U141.153.74.246. Then, a new user User:YINever appeared with the same editing list and editing pattern. If it is TJive or Nobs01 or just one, what is happening is sockpuppetry to mask POV revert warring and potential 3RR avoidance.--Cberlet 16:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all, it is a lie to state that I sent you an "off-Wiki e-mail" as I sent it through my verified address, else I would not have any access to you in the first place.
    Second, the (brief) contents of that e-mail, though they do not serve in my disfavor (else I would not have sent it), were written in the expectation that you would have the decency to keep the matter private. I sent it so as to dispel your peculiar notion that Nobs had returned (e.g. here and here for reference, though you have now deleted the latter). I, perhaps naively, expected the courtesy of the matter being closed. Rather you have exacerbated it on a flimsy pretext.
    You have provided absolutely no evidence that there is a tie between Nobs and the other accounts, nor any involved policy violations on the part of the latter, and so this report is a highly inappropriate abuse of CheckUser in order to push a content dispute into other realms which do not concern the articles in question. That you would describe edits of a user you disagree with as being "POV revert warring" proves nothing but that you are engaged in an argument over the very question of appropriate content and your accusation of "potential 3RR avoidance" is speculation based on absolutely nothing, certainly not my rather spotless record in that regard. --TJive 21:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobs hasn't edited in six months; it's well known we don't keep logs going back that far. Regarding TJive and YINever, absent an alleged policy violation there's no reason to investigate at this time. Mackensen (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Archdale

    Archdale has been permablocked for repeatedly recreating the nonsensical articles PeeWipes and Abusive Aussie Husband/Battered Southern Wife stereotype, and to make personal attacks on those who tried to reign in his nonsense, including, of course, me. Now Hunchkeh's only edits were to recreate the above articles and to make further attacks against me. I strongly suspect that the same individual is behind both accounts. 207.156.196.242 15:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Raptor30 / 03Rotpar / Demiurge010

    IP address has been labled as the "lingerie vandal" by User:Bachrach44 (See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Admin_Canidate, and this edit). User:03Rotpar made quite a demonstration of insisting on posting his RfA nom where his RfA was his first edit. Further commentary and investigation concluded that User:03Rotpar and User:Raptor30 were socks of each other, and both have been blocked indefinitely. User:193.111.10.29 was admitted by User:03Rotpar to be his IP, and that IP was blocked indefinitely as an open proxy. This edit gives me suspicion that these accounts and the IP are used by User:Demiurge010. I would like to have that confirmed, if possible, to verify that the bans on Raptor30 and 03Rotpar are fully appropriate. I also have suspicion that User:Jesterjester may be related due to timing of placement of his RfA close to the timing of User:03Rotpar's and the user having only just begun editing on Wikipedia, just as User:03Rotpar had. --Durin 13:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    General Eisenhower or GeorgeMoney

    Some voting on MfD [56], some voting on Eisenhower's talk [57]. I am unsure if it is Eisenhower, GeorgeMoney, or any. I have similar concerns to the archived RFCU for Eisenhower. Computerjoe's talk 16:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    CheckUser is not for fishing. DGX 17:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Will run it, with the hopes that it will not show any connection, and these requests will stop. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 04:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    At the risk of WP:BITE, may I request this ceckuser be extended to Rayven_the_Crook (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)? Cheers. NSLE (T+C) at 04:20 UTC (2006-05-30)
    And maybe even Old_Abe (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), My_Old_Kentucky_Home (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), and Code_Napoleon (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) --GeorgeMoney T·C 23:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Robgerts

    In a related thing, can you check

    against GE? All 3 have created copycat CVUs, and Robgerts did it after being inactive since September (when he was a vandal) --Rory096 18:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    And maybe even 68.211.205.149 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), who vandalized one of those as his first edit after it was MfDed (and then vandalized User:FireFox). --Rory096 18:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    OrtonFan2006 was RFCU'd. Computerjoe's talk 19:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why I said it was just related, not the same, because while OrtonFan may not be GE, Robgerts may be either. --Rory096 20:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined requests

    Completed requests

    Astint1

    All users repeatedly remove an AfD notice from Pour over. If CheckUser confirms that these are the same user, I intend to report to WP:AIV Lbbzman 03:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Confirmed. Astint1 is 24.238.212.90; doesn't appear to be connected to 70.2.227.93. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 16:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Polaron & Node ue

    Same pattern, same user. Severe block. Recognized here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMoldovan_language&diff=50926117&oldid=50499656 --221.150.196.170 09:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Red X Unrelated 24.251.68.75 is Node ue, which is fairly clear from the history of his userpage, but there is no apparent connection with Polaron. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 16:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hganesan

    Simishag (talk · contribs) asked me to see if they were one and the same, but obviously, as I don't have checkuser, I can't.

    Reasoning for Simishag to believe Bucs. is a puppet of Hganesan is here Will (E@) T 01:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Red X Unrelated I can't find any evidence linking the two; from all appearances, Hganesan is coming from California, and Buscrsafe from the UK. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 16:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    -Inanna-

    It seems that the banned Inanna just likes to edit! By looking at Dandanakan's contributions, one would find that:

    • Both like to change numbers to favor the Turks. (i.e. make it seem that Kurds only account for 5% of Turkey's population when the real number is 15-20%.)
    • Here again, this was one of the reasons Inanna got into edit wars all the time, because she changed numbers without citing her sources.
    • And now look at the edit history of the Yıldız Kenter article.

    I'm sure that this user is Inanna. —Khoikhoi 15:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Confirmed. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 16:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruzgar

    Ruzgar was blocked for a week today for continuing to add an inflammatory image to an article and personal attacks. Only a few hours after he was blocked, Erdemsenol, who hasn't edited in 4 months re-uploads the image and adds it to the article. Here's some interesting facts: both users seem to have an interest in (1.) the removal of the Muhammed cartoons picture (2.) anything Kurdish on Turkey-related articles, and (3.) pushing Turkish nationalistic views on Wikipedia. I have no doubts that these users are the same person, and that Ruzgar is evading his block. 80.145.74.84 also just re-added the image, and also talks just like Ruzgar. —Khoikhoi 05:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Confirmed. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 16:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ericnorcross, Katherinejohnson, Almost Famous, Living large

    User:Almost Famous emailed threats to User:Econrad very much like previous threats from User:Ericnorcross; what's more, he used the email address of confirmed sockpuppet User:Sevenlinefeatures. User:Katherinejohnson has claimed in the past to be the roommate of Eric Norcross, and User:Living large has edits on subjects and described him or herself in such a way that it's not likely to be a coincidence.  RasputinAXP  c 02:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Additions:

    Each vandalized my user and talk page, including posting personal information. Not that it much matters because I don't hide it, but in the end it only adds fuel to the stalking.  RasputinAXP  c 15:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Confirmed: Finding A Solution = Living large = Finding A Solution = Nicole_Lynn = Katherinejohnson = SyossetMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) = Eric_The_Red (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) = LittleStinkNess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) = J._Whales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Fred Bauder 03:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    A_Funny_Thing_Happened (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) another one. Fred Bauder 12:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Bright888, Schola64, Polaris36, Foreastwest

    Brand new users trailing each other and taking turns reverting similar edits mostly having to do with the relationship between Japan and Korea. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding a new one who just reverted my revert after I warned Schola64 about 3RR. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    adding more new accounts making similar reverts in related articles around the same time. Appleby 00:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Confirmed. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 17:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Chadbryant / Chud Manzier

    Chadbryant is quite well known for reverting Rec.sport.pro-wrestling to his preferred version (an example here), but he does so infrequently without breaking WP:3RR. Chud Manzier is another user who has come along and reverted the same version as Chadbryant (an example here, and has also done some things that I've seen Chadbryant do, such as flag other users as sockpuppets of Dick Witham. Other users have flagged Chud Manzier as a sockpuppet of Chadbryant, while Chadbryant has reverted to remove the notice.

    I indefinitely blocked Chud Manzier because he was obviously doing the same things as Chadbryant. Chud Manzier sent me email vehemently denying that he is Chadbryant while chastising me for not having any hard evidence of his sockpuppetry, and insisted that I unblock him ASAP. I unblocked Chud Manzier due to lack of hard evidence, but Chud Manzier hasn't done anything since I unblocked him. I am a little concerned that Chud Manzier is a "sleeper sockpuppet" that Chadbryant is keeping around to make it seem like he has more consensus than not. I have stayed in the background in the hopes that things will resolve themselves, but I don't want to wait any longer for fear that the IP addresses will be lost from the databases. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Inconclusive Essjay (Talk • Connect) 17:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Bugman94

    This seems to be the 5th puppet now, constantly abuses {{helpme}} and generally annoying. -- 9cds(talk) 15:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Confirmed. Without a doubt, all of the following are the same user:

    Blocking the IP for a month. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 15:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Iloveminun

    Full reasoning behind argument - User:HighwayCello/Minun

    I have suspected that there may be a connection between "Po132", "Minun132" and "Iloveminun", primarily because of their similar names. What later aroused my suspicion further was the discussion between the three users, the somewhat suspicious breaks between editting and user contributions and their joint interest in Pokémon, all three of them joining the Pokémon WikiProject... for full reasoning, see here. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 21:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Confirmed as follows:

    Lou franklin

    Hernando's editing pattern closely mirrors that of Lou, consisting mostly of edits to Societal attitudes towards homosexuality and Talk:Societal attitudes towards homosexuality, which take a similar POV position to Lou. He also opposed KimvdLinde's RfA, following one of Lou's other habits - opposing the RfAs of people involved in the article and/or his Arbcom case.

    On the face of it, Hernando is a merely a meatpuppet of Lou. He has a very different speaking style, the account was created just under two months before he started to edit war in earnest, and on the face of it his edits mirror Lou's because Lou asked him to take up his position on the talk page. However, there is a crack in that image - Hernando's first four edits after his first to his userpage were minor copyediting edits, making no mistakes, despite the fact that his talk page edits imply that he has a poor grasp of English. He hasn't made any since he took up the edit war on SATH. As for the creation date, although the Arbcom case was not closed at the time it was fairly clear which way it was going. And the easiest way to 'disguise your handwriting' is to reduce it to the level of a child.

    At least two editors other than myself have openly speculated as to whether Hernando is a sock, and I think this should be cleared up. Sam Blanning(talk) 19:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hernando Cortez's editing times also correspond closely with blocks against Lou franklin. Phr (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Likely. Hernando_Cortez is editing from a number of public locations (libraries, copy shops, etc.) in the same city as Lou_franklin; looks like a textbook case of attempting to avoid detection. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 01:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Greier

    Greier, who has some weird obsession of adding {{historomania}} to the Vlachs article, is currently blocked for 3RR because of that. Today, Vlachul, with only 2 edits, comes out of nowhere and adds the tepmlate back, the exact same behavior as Greier. Looks like a clear case of block evasion to me. —Khoikhoi 18:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Also note here and here he comes to the page and reverts back to Greier's version. Or here where he edits G's userpage. —Khoikhoi 18:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also perhaps the banned User:Bonaparte might be involved. He too has an interest in pushing the Romanian POV above all others and follows Greier from page to page. —Khoikhoi 18:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For proof of the above statement, check the anon (open proxy) IPs which reverted to Greiers version at Vlachs of Serbia - they were sockpuppets of Bonaparte (he was permabanned for using open proxies). --Telex 18:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Likely. Will have to check with Jayjg about a connection to Bonaparte. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 01:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser&oldid=56851168"