Misplaced Pages

:Requests for checkuser/Case/Israelbeach - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser | Case

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kevin B12 (talk | contribs) at 09:13, 6 August 2006 (Ooops, and make the section header be 2nd level). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 09:13, 6 August 2006 by Kevin B12 (talk | contribs) (Ooops, and make the section header be 2nd level)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Israelbeach

The malicious vandalism of my userpage by new users and IPs with an agenda typical of Israelbeach has been going on since May and includes revealing my name again and again, so that I've effectively been forced out of my anonymity on Misplaced Pages ("ongoing serious pattern vandalism"). As a reminder: Israelbeach was banned for revealing my name and making legal threats against me. Please check if any of the IPs known to be used by or suspected of having been used by Israelbeach are behind the two recent vandals, so the IPs can be blocked to prevent creation of yet more throwaway accounts of this nature. I've listed user:Lennys because he is the most recent suspected sockpuppet of Israelbeach to make an edit, others have not edited recently or have been blocked anyway. --woggly 07:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Woggly, I'd say you're justified in making these blocks yourself in future to save time (if you want to). Your personal information is being compromised, and you have a right to stop that as soon as you can; and it's not as though there's any doubt that Israelbeach and socks are banned. Maybe others disagree, but I think when the disruption reaches this level, it doesn't matter who does the blocking. SlimVirgin 07:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


If you are creating a new request about this user, please add it to the top of the page, above this notice. Don't forget to add
{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Israelbeach}}
to the checkuser page here. Previous requests (shown below), and this box, will be automatically hidden on Requests for checkuser (but will still appear here).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

Bonnieisrael

A group of accounts whose edit histories are strikingly similar in timing, tone and location, largely to do with the deleted Israel News Agency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It's asserted that at least one is a sock of blocked Israelbeach (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), which is plausible enough. If these are socks then the use clearly falls outside of what is permitted by policy. Just zis Guy you know? 16:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

 Clerk note: See also previous request Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Israelbeach. Thatcher131 16:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


no Declined. "It's asserted that at least one is a sock of blocked Israelbeach (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), which is plausible enough." It may be plausible enough for most things, but checkuser isn't one of them. The threshhold for making a check (a/k/a, "how it fits in the checkuser policy") must be satisfied before a check can be run; I'm not seeing any explanation of *why* the users are suspect, just a statement that they *are* suspect. As for "If these are socks then the use clearly falls outside of what is permitted by policy.", we're not permitted to run a checkuser on the premise that the results will justify the check; that's the ends justifying the means, and the policy doesn't permit it. With that said, the Foundation Office has been involved with Israelbeach, and you might consider raising the issue with Danny; he's in a much better position to investigate the matter. Essjay (Talk) 12:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • The reason they are suspect is that all of them have an edit history restricted to exactly the same contentious content, and all of them surface when the removal of that contentious content is being debated. Oh and most have/had the "censorship" ribbon on their user page.. But never mind, they have been prevented form disrupting the latest AfD anyway. Just zis Guy you know? 13:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.




The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

Israelbeach


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)

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)
Mgm is broadly correct. This feels like a fishing expedition. Mackensen (talk) 11:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

Israelbeach aka Joel Leyden

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)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent requests related to this user should be made below, in a new section.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

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)

no Declined I don't know what this is, but it's not a checkuser request. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 04:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent requests related to this user should be made below, in a new section.