| Revision as of 10:52, 26 June 2006 editHpaami (talk | contribs)28 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:02, 26 June 2006 edit undoMackensen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators125,063 edits →IsraelbeachNext edit → | ||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
| :::New users who just vote and don't add any reasonings to a deletion debate can be ignored without going through a laborious checkuser procedure, methinks. - ]|] 09:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC) | :::New users who just vote and don't add any reasonings to a deletion debate can be ignored without going through a laborious checkuser procedure, methinks. - ]|] 09:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::Not sure I understand this logic. The 2 users under question ] and ] are not new & don't just vote. They are incvolved in abusive trolling. If you are talking about me as a new user - correct that I am new. But incorrect that I don't give reasons. I have entered on this topic, edited the deliberate falsehoods out of the entry & have given reasons. Based on a dispute on another forum, where ] came off looking pretty shabby I believe that he used his "suspected" sock puppet as a troll against his perceived enemy. Using a style, content and language that those familiar with ] recognise well. A bit sad really. ] 10:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC) | ::Not sure I understand this logic. The 2 users under question ] and ] are not new & don't just vote. They are incvolved in abusive trolling. If you are talking about me as a new user - correct that I am new. But incorrect that I don't give reasons. I have entered on this topic, edited the deliberate falsehoods out of the entry & have given reasons. Based on a dispute on another forum, where ] came off looking pretty shabby I believe that he used his "suspected" sock puppet as a troll against his perceived enemy. Using a style, content and language that those familiar with ] recognise well. A bit sad really. ] 10:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :::Mgm is broadly correct. This feels like a fishing expedition. ] ] 11:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <noinclude> | <noinclude> | ||
| <!-- | <!-- | ||
Revision as of 11:02, 26 June 2006
Israelbeach
- Israelbeach (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Potterseesall (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- voted against deletion of Israel News Agency, voted against deletion of Michele Shohatovitz (an Israel News Agency contributor)
- Givati (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Hpaami added this user. Iolakana| 18:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Karnei (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Bronxgirl (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Perupalm (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Maayanbaruch (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Achlasaba (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Voted against deletion of Israel News Agency (first time around), Voted against deletion of Joel Leyden
- Bonnieisrael (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Despite being advised to "work on other things", Bonnieisrael's only edits since being unblocked have been to vote against deletion of Michele Shohatovitz, an Israel News Agency writer and to vote against deletion of Israel News Agency article .
Seems that user:Israelbeach has been using sockpuppets to use wikipedia to launch a personal attack against Dr._Mike_Cohen - someone with whom he had a dispute on a chat forum which user:Israelbeach moderates.
Hpaami 14:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Please note that the admittance of Potterseesall has not actually admitted that he is a sockpuppet, Hpaami added it . I have also added more users as well as more information and differences to validate the claim that they are using sockpuppets. This is required so administrators can take further action at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Israelbeach. Thanks, Iolakana| 18:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
This is correct. For proper disclosure, please note that the same is true for the "admission" of user:givati Anyone who was privy to the libelous and venomous discussion on another forum, would quickly spot by language and content and style that these are both user:Israelbeach sockpuppets. I added the "admission" as a warning to be cautious of the libelous statemens. (I hope it doesn't break any rules) user:Israelbeach has been caught sockpuppeting on other forums - including those he moderates. Ironically, it was his sockpuppeteering that launched the latest childish outbursts. He has been banned from other user goups for this sort of defamation using sockpuppets.
Hpaami 19:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Declined Mackensen (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- May I ask why? Iolakana| 14:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- New users who just vote and don't add any reasonings to a deletion debate can be ignored without going through a laborious checkuser procedure, methinks. - Mgm| 09:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Not sure I understand this logic. The 2 users under question user:Potterseesall and user:Givati are not new & don't just vote. They are incvolved in abusive trolling. If you are talking about me as a new user - correct that I am new. But incorrect that I don't give reasons. I have entered on this topic, edited the deliberate falsehoods out of the entry & have given reasons. Based on a dispute on another forum, where user:Israelbeach came off looking pretty shabby I believe that he used his "suspected" sock puppet as a troll against his perceived enemy. Using a style, content and language that those familiar with user:Israelbeach recognise well. A bit sad really. Hpaami 10:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- May I ask why? Iolakana| 14:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- Mgm is broadly correct. This feels like a fishing expedition. Mackensen (talk) 11:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Israelbeach aka Joel Leyden
- Israelbeach (talk · contribs) is the main account, here are the suspected sockpuppets:
- Bonnieisrael (talk · contribs)
- Davidstone (talk · contribs)
- Nancetlv (talk · contribs)
- Achlasaba (talk · contribs)
- IP 147.237.73.201
These usernames have been used to circumvent 3RR on Ra'anana, to vote against deletion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Israel news agency and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Joel Leyden to garner "support" for edit wars, and general bullying of anyone who disagrees with Israelbeach. I'd like to have proof that Israelbeach is a sockfarmer so that action can be taken to block him and his puppets for violation of 3RR, a tactic he is bound to continue using. --Woggly 19:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- Moved notice as it had been placed down in the completed section Syrthiss 02:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Inconclusive. Essjay 03:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- Agree, CheckUser results are Inconclusive. Looks more like meatpuppeting than classic sockpuppeting. Jayjg 17:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Subsequent requests related to this user should be made below, in a new section.
| If you are creating a new request about this user, don't forget to edit this section and add {{Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Israelbeach}} The previous request (shown above), and this box, will be automatically hidden on Requests for checkuser (it will still appear here). |
86.5.7.168
I ask for a checkuser to be run so as to establish whether Israelbeach has again been evading his block through use of sockpuppets. I'd like to point out that Israelbeach has been known to edit from multiple IPs, including: + I ask for a checkuser to be run so as to establish whether 86.5.7.168 has again been evading his block through use of sockpuppets. This person has been updating pages on Misplaced Pages with factually incorrect and liabellous content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince123 (talk • contribs)
The problem with this site is anyone can delete any content that they feel to be factually inaccurate, without providing any basis for this, reasoning or counter argument. I provided references and links and yet Prince123 deemed it to factually inaccurate! Admittedly I could not find any links pertaining to the conviction of Daniel Attenborough so I could understand why that section was removed, however why remove the whole section on the local history? It wasn't unsubstantiated, much of the information from the village (which is over 500 years old) is written in BOOKS! Yes there was a source of reference before the Internet, before hyperlinks! What else could I do other than provide the names of the books? Get one of the authors to place it on a website so that I may link to it? Are you a historian Prince123? Are you familiar with the local history of Attenborough? Then how are you able to decide what should be on the page and what should not, how are you certain what is fact and what is not?
I should also add that in your opinion Prince123, famous locals should also not be listed in local history, which is clearly ridiculous, by that logic there would no mention of Elvis on the Graceland page!
Just for record I am not evading my block, I have never been blocked and I am not some kind of sockpuppet.
86.5.7.168 23:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Declined I don't know what this is, but it's not a checkuser request. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 04:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Subsequent requests related to this user should be made below, in a new section.
| If you are creating a new request about this user, don't forget to edit this section and add {{Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Israelbeach}} The previous request (shown above), and this box, will be automatically hidden on Requests for checkuser (it will still appear here). |