Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Essjay (talk | contribs) at 11:47, 31 March 2006 (→{{user|SirIsaacBrock}} and {{user|WritersCramp}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

File a Checkuser Request

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. Cases are created on subpages of Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case. If you require help or advice, ask at Misplaced Pages 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to the currently open section (if the case is not yet archived) or adding a new section to the top (if the case has been archived).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: Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/John Doe <inputbox> type=create editintro=Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Inputbox/Header preload=Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Inputbox/Sample default=Misplaced Pages: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}}
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}}	Unrelated  {{Unrelated}}
Confirmed with respect to the named user(s).  No comment with respect to IP address(es).  {{Confirmed-nc}}
Technically indistinguishable  {{Technically indistinguishable}}
Likely  {{Likely}}	Unlikely  {{Unlikely}}
Possible  {{Possible}}	Inconclusive  {{Inconclusive}}
Declined  {{Declined}}	Unnecessary  {{Unnecessary}}
Stale (too old)  {{StaleIP}}	No comment  {{Nocomment}}
CheckUser is not a crystal ball  {{Crystalball}}	CheckUser is not for fishing  {{Fishing}}
CheckUser is not magic pixie dust  {{Pixiedust}}	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:Fyodor Dos and User:Lightbringer AKA User:Basil Rathbone

Fyodor Dos has been trying to force unsourced information into Freemasonry and occult, has been blocked for 3RR twice already, and claims the rvs are unsourced when the supporting facts are clearly marked on the talk pages. He has also made his bias towards Freemasonry very clear, and obviously does not wish to engage in any discussion because he cannot support his position. His behavior pattern shows a very strong possibility that he is a sock, as he has also never edited on any other articles save the ones he is vandalizing. MSJapan 06:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The 2nd 3rr was in error, two of the edits were errors caused by page loading problems, which I noted, and were corrected. They were not reverts and should not have been counted towards total. There are a group of Editors who indicate on their user page they belong to the same organization and are combining their edits to circumvent 3rr.Fyodor Dos 07:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I deny completely the allegations of being a sock of a banned user. I note this user made a request for a check user two days ago on me that was denied. In my response to it I pointed out this users unreferenced, undiscussed, and unsummarized deletion of a sentence on occult page - which stated that the word esoteric was the Greek word for occult.(The esoteric page contains more information on these words meaning and links.) As with my response on the check user yesterday - that disappeared, I ask that this users abuse of the Misplaced Pages be noted, especially his frequent habit of accusing others of being 'socks' as well as his continual check user requests and filing of unreferenced complaints of other editors he has an editorial disagreement with. This is not the way Misplaced Pages is supposed to function. This user has also made some statements that border on uncivil or even abusive conduct towards me such as "Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. Go somewhere else.", "End of story." " especially when you don't have anything to back it up." "an attempt to mold the article to preexisting ideas", "I don't believe in coincidences" etc.

This user has a current 3rr complaint against him here and has made four false complaints against me in the last two days here, and he has just made an abusively worded arbitration complaint against me here, and he has now made another check user request against me here.Fyodor Dos 07:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The 3RR complain Fyodor Dos placed against MSJapan (and Blueboar) works only if you believe that they are sockpuppets of each other, or that there is a cabal that works to silence Foydor Dos. On the other hand, Foydor Dos has allready been blocked twice for 3RR violations, in addition to failing WP:AGF and WP:CIV. He does show several of the traits displayed by Lightbringer, as reported on WP:LTA. A CheckUser would be usefull to verify that he is a sock, or lay the suspicions to rest. WegianWarrior 07:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

WegianWarrior is a frequent editor on Freemasonry pages and he indicates on his user page he is a Freemason, as do here MSJapan and Blueboar who I have made a complaint about, so yes cabal is very much applicable. Where is WegianWarrior reference that I violated WP:CIV, WP:AGF, or WP:LTA? I gave a half dozen examples of WP:CIV violations by User:MSJapan against me. This is standard fair meeted out to editors who make edits that these and other Freemason editors dislike. I am the victime here. Both 3rr rulings made against me were just plain wrong. The first one counted edits I did to different sections on the page, and the second one counted 2 errors of half loaded pages, which I indicated when I fixed them.Fyodor Dos 04:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Benapgar (talk · contribs) and Weasel_Finder (talk · contribs)

Benapgar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now indef-bloacked for serial disruption and incivility. Minutes after the block, up popped Weasel_Finder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with an editing pattern sufficiently similar to cause at least three people to suspect that they are one and the same. Just zis Guy you know? 09:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed -- I find the two posts regarding Gastrich to be rather telling in light of one of Ben's recent assertions of a "cabal". •Jim62sch• 17:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Likely.--Mackensen (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Also check 172.190.98.116 (talk · contribs) and 172.196.11.239 (talk · contribs). Both are walking in Benapgar's shoes at Talk:Intelligent design. FeloniousMonk 15:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Doe,_John (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now making a fuss about the accreditation status of Southern Baptist colleges and degrees of their alumni. This is again highly suggestive of Benapgar's previous behaviour. Just zis Guy you know? 08:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Tommiks (talk · contribs), Karabekir (talk · contribs), OttomanReference (talk · contribs)

After investigating the cases, and merging users contributions, I came to the conclusion that Cool_Cat was right and he was not Karabekir. On the other hand, I now know that Tommiks used two sock to get involved in some issues without having his reputation harmed. Here are the result of my merging test: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Fadix/evidencepage I have bolded the entire texts when two segment showed a continuity. The thing is that I am sure he has used proxies, otherwise why will he deny it, but I am taking the chance here in cases he hasn't or made few mistakes. The merging test clearly shows that they are the same user, everytime one disappeared the other reappeared continuing the ohers work where he has left, an example is when on March 3, 2006 22:48, Karabekir made an edit deleting temporarly the Turkish position section , it was in fact to reorganize it, we understand this after it has been reintroduced after working on it, 20 minutes after, they were reintroduced by pieces, NOT by Karabekir but Tommiks , , . The merging test is full of such examples. As can be shown in my evidence page merging test, they are all the same users, they also have identical edit summaries and wordings in many cases and have done the same particular grammar mistakes, an example is 'paragraf' insteed of 'paragraph.' , , . (see summary)

While checkuser is not in my opinion necessary to establish the identity of the socks, that Tommiks is denying his involvement made me think that it would be a plus if by mistake he has done few mistakes.

The reason why I think it is important, is to clean my reputation from a user that has used socks to support eachothers edits and scrapped the Armenian genocide article and then when criticised used another sock to support the other user, in the last weeks many new users appeared like this leterally invading articles and I have attempted to find socks and here is my first one, since I have others which I need to find in due time. I believe my request should be accepted since it is fully justified in my opinion. Fad (ix) 17:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Update: I thought that I should clarify more why it is necessary to checkuse. The Armenian Genocide article is considered controversial and it was agreed that a discussion should be made in the discussion page before making any significant edit, the discussion page also contains that warning. I warned Karabekir to stick to that and discuss before, but he has completly rearranged and made various major changes. When another member reverted, OttomanReference came in to Karabekirs rescue supporting his edits and rereverting to Karabekirs version. Also, when I have warned Karabekir in his talk page that he has made enought major edits and that we should first discuss the changes he slandered me . If there is need to more justification for a checkuser and that is the reason of this delay, I will gladly provide them. Fad (ix) 18:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Repartee (talk · contribs) and many more recent suspected sockpuppets

I am reposting this request from February, which was archived and closed as stale. This user/vandal has reappeared since then under 20 different user names and IP addresses — most recently as Deliciously Witty on March 29. I realize that the records don't go back as far as Repartee's last edits, but many accounts are more recent. Here is a list of suspected Repartee sockpuppets and dates of last edits:

1. 198.20.32.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - February 15 (IP is from Thames Valley School District)
2. 67.158.65.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - February 15 (IP is from Execulink Internet Services Corporation - Burgessville, Ontario)
3. 70.50.40.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - February 15
4. 198.20.32.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - February 16 (IP is from Thames Valley School District)
5. Top_Drawer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - February 16
6. TrevorMcKillop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - February 16
7. Bottom_Drawer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - February 17
8. Middle_Drawer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - February 20
9. Haitian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - February 20
10. 67.158.72.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - February 21 (IP is from Execulink Internet Services Corporation - Burgessville, Ontario)
11. Elvis_costello (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - February 27
12. EddieMoney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - February 28
13. Glockenspiel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - March 3
14. Parliament_funkadelic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - March 3
15. WitticiousFiend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - March 14
16. 67.158.73.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - March 21 (IP is from Execulink Internet Services Corporation - Burgessville, Ontario)
17. Captainfantastic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - March 27
18. 198.20.32.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - March 28 (IP is from Thames Valley School District)
19. Deliciously Witty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - March 29
20. Ohgoodrepartee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - March 30

More details and evidence of similar editing patterns are on User talk:Repartee. My suspicions are that Repartee is editing from home, connected via Execulink, and editing from school, merely to be annoying and trolling. If checkuser verifies this, I'm not sure what can/should be done. Should we block the school or range of IPs from account creation? Perhaps, I'd rather just deal with each sockpuppet than block innocent users. From time to time, I've searched through recent change logs to find edits from these IP ranges, however, there's no way I know of to flag new accounts created from certain IP ranges (would be nice if we could?). Please advise on how such cases are generally handled and if necessary, do checkuser. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 15:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

204.56.7.1 and Reddi

Any chance of User:204.56.7.1 against User:Reddi? Reddi is arbcomm-limited, and 204 edits much like Reddi and is potentially skirting those restrictions. William M. Connolley 21:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

PoolGuy (talk · contribs) suspected sockpuppets

Based on the pattern of conduct, I think I already know what the answer would be, but please check these as potential PoolGuy sockpuppets:

• AMatchingPair (talk · contribs)
• DifficultToCommunicate (talk · contribs)
• TryingToDoWhatsRight (talk · contribs)
• WillTryAnyway (talk · contribs)
• BringItTogether (talk · contribs)
• GettingRightToIt (talk · contribs)
• AlmostThere (talk · contribs)
• AvoidingAvoidance (talk · contribs)
• ExplorerLuver (talk · contribs)

The last one is a much older account than the others, suggesting that there are other sleeper sockpuppets. If so, please find out what they are so that they can be blocked as well. --Nlu (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I will try this, even though past experience shows that following the policies and guidelines of Misplaced Pages is not neccisarily important to completing Check User requests (I do respect the work you do, I hope you will not expose sockpuppets just for the sake of exposing them without policy violations).

A sockpuppet, in and of itself does not violate wikipedia policy. There should be a violation of Misplaced Pages policy for a check user to be completed. No violation of policy has been cited by Nlu. Further, Nlu has blocked accounts simply for being a sockpuppet or suspicion of being a sockpuppet. Please do not encourage Nlu's behavior by completing a Check User. He already thinks he is right, even though he can not cite a policy violation. I can provide all of the evidence needed to show there has been no policy violation. Thank you for reading this. I hope Misplaced Pages policy will eventually prevail. WillTryAnyway 07:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You're demonstrating why you're violating WP:POINT. As has been explained to you by several other admins a long time ago. Now go away. --Nlu (talk) 07:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Trying to explain that there has never been a violation of Misplaced Pages Policy to warrant a block is not a violation of WP:POINT. You have made an error in your block, and since you can not cite it, you are simply trying to stop a user from being a Wikipedian through your blocks and page protects. That is just not right. Cite the violation. It is very simple and Admins all over Misplaced Pages do it when they questioned about their administrative action. Your continued avoidance appears to be evidence that you can not cite a violation. I am sorry if that scares you, but it does invalidate the basis for your blocks. Please unblock and unprotect me. BringItTogether 07:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't try to play the innocent one here. Your actions as GoldToeMarionette (talk · contribs) were what got you into this mess in the first place. Don't pretend that that didn't happen. I will make no further comments on this matter. Once your block expires, feel free to bring an RfAr against me. I have every confidence that my actions were correct. --Nlu (talk) 07:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

There we have it. You think GoldToeMarionette violated a Misplaced Pages policy. This is the the crux. GoldToeMarionette never violated a Misplaced Pages policy. Perhaps a couple users did not like GoldToeMarionette's posts, but policy was never violated. Find the policy and cite user contributions that violated that policy and I will retract my previous statement.

You saw something you did not like and you have worked to instill your punitive actions since. That is not right. If you are unable to find policy that justifies the action you want to take, attacking sockpuppets is no better. Leave a comment on the User Talk Page then let it be. If it really irks you, get concensus and develop a new policy. Your actions have not been based on Misplaced Pages policy. Please unblock and unprotect the account. GettingRightToIt 07:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

(Violating my own promise not to comment further... And I think this will be the last.) They cited WP:SPAM violations. WP:SOCK was also violated in at least two different subsections. Of course, you're pretending that you didn't see them. --Nlu (talk) 07:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

User:PoolGuy keeps wikilawyering about having a specific policy cited. Per WP:SOCK, "Users who are banned from editing or temporarily subject to a legitimate block may not use sock puppets to circumvent this." Of the above-mentioned suspected socks, all except User:ExplorerLuver were created while User:PoolGuy was legitimately blocked, indicating that they were created for the purpose of circumventing the block, which is in violation of policy. Angr (talk • contribs) 08:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Two other suspected PoolGuy socks, GoldToeMarionette (talk · contribs) and PunchingBag (talk · contribs), were created when PoolGuy was not blocked, so while they weren't created for anything good, they weren't technically for block circumvention either. Angr (talk • contribs) 08:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Angr, Thank you for helping to advance this. Sockpuppets being created would be a violation of a 'legitimate' block. In this instance the block was not legitimate, so claims of violating WP:SOCK are not at issue. The original problem was the inappropriate labeling of a WP:SPAM violation.

1. According to Spamming on Misplaced Pages "Spamming is the abuse of any electronic communications medium to send unsolicited messages in bulk." Messages were not sent in bulk. Individual messages were sent to a finite group related to an AfD. Postings did not stray from Misplaced Pages:Spam guidelines relative to internal spamming.

1. Misplaced Pages actually has a guideline to assist Wikipedians at Misplaced Pages:Spam#Internal_spamming, in order to promote Misplaced Pages matters such as elections. "Clean up your mess. For example, after engaging in cross-posting to promote some election, be sure to remove those cross-posts after the election is complete." Per this evidence you can see that occurred.

1. Claiming the user is a spammer when following a Misplaced Pages Guideline that has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow appears to be contradictory. The communications can not be construed as an abuse when Misplaced Pages Guidelines outline how to appropriately do what was done.

1. There clearly was no Policy violation.

In terms of Wikilawyering, legal technicalities are not being implored. Simply a user is trying to demonstrate that the action taken has been unreasonable and not in compliance with policy. Sorry if this is seems nitpicky, however it should not have happened in the first place. After the first check user was done this happened

1. "23:03, 21 March 2006, Hall Monitor (Talk) blocked GoldToeMarionette (contribs) (infinite) (sockpuppet used by User:PoolGuy per WP:RFCU results; please select one username, then email me to have the block removed)"

The cited reason was being a sockpuppet, not a violation of WP:SPAM or anything else. This could have been addressed at that time, however there has been a blocking and page protection spree since, prohibiting communication. The created sockpuppets have not been able to develop into anything good, because they were blocked without giving them a chance to prove themselves. Thank you for your understanding. Sorry this discussion had to transpire here. AlmostThere 13:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The above is AlmostThere (talk · contribs)'s first contribution to Misplaced Pages; yet another username created while PoolGuy (talk · contribs) is blocked. Angr (talk • contribs) 14:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Completed requests

User:Ban.wma

Earlier today it was confirmed that User:Pro-Lick, User:Halliburton Shill, User:AbortMe, User:Cry Me a Shill, and User:Vote Machine Malfunction were all the same user. Blocks were issued all around for the excessive block evesion performed using most of these, and the continued reverting, way over 3RR, by the collective socks. Another obvious sock then popped up, User:Undermined. I'm not too concerned about a check of User:Undermined, as it was so obviously a quickly registered evasion sock. Then the users User:Ban.wma and User:Alienus made the exact same revert again. Looking at Ban.wma's edit history, it was quickly apparent that he had first edited about 24 hours after Halliburton Shill was given his user-name block. And less than an hour after Ban.wma's first edit, he dived head-first into the discussions over Halliburton Shill's situation, calling for the unblocking of Shill. Very suspicious behavious for a new account. So today, after Ban.wma contributed to the chain of reverts at abortion, I blocked him as another in the above sequence of sock puppets. He protested on his user page, and I said I would bring the issue here to once and for all determine if he is yet another in the sock parade, or a independant editor caught up in the chaos.

As for User:Alienus, a check there would be nice, just to once and for all establish that he is not a part of the sock parade. I lean toward him not being part of it, but if he is, being a more established user, then he is likely the actual main account. But as I don't really have much evidence beyond the reverts, I understand if a check of him is declined. - TexasAndroid 00:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Ban.wma and Undermined are the same person. I don't see any evidence of a connection to Alienus in the checks of Ban.wma and Undetermined; I'm not comfortable running a check specifically on a long term contributor without a lot of evidence suggesting a link. Essjay 06:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Does that mean that User:Ban.wma and User:Undermined are not the same as Pro-Lick etc? As far as I know, Pro-Lick's block was extended when Undermined appeared on the scene, as Undermined was thought to be a sock created by him especially for the purpose of block evasion. (Perhaps not terribly unfair, as he certainly did create User:AbortMe, User:Cry Me a Shill, and User:Vote Machine Malfunction for that purpose, even if he's innocent in the case of Undermined.) Also, his block was extended further yesterday when User:Curettage appeared. No request was made for a user check on User:Curettage (I wasn't the admin who extended the block), but it would seem certain that Curettage is connected to Ban.wma and Undermined, or to Pro-Lick and his sockpuppets, or to both. Did the name Curettage show up when you checked Ban.wma? Thanks. AnnH ♫ 07:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The technical evidence strongly suggests a connection between Undermined and the other Halliburton Shill socks. Curettege is not a name that I noticed. Essjay 07:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Society of Friends (talk · contribs), Carla Pehlke (talk · contribs)

Are these sockpuppet of Zephram Stark (talk · contribs)? I'm sure about Society of Friends, but the other one is just a hunch. See here for list of sockpuppets. Recent ones were The Cleaning Lady (talk · contribs) and Palmetto State (talk · contribs).--JW1805 (Talk) 20:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Society of Friends: Confirmed.
• Carla Pehlke: Inconclusive. Essjay 05:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

SirIsaacBrock (talk · contribs) and WritersCramp (talk · contribs)

Geoff_NoNick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a new editor, he keeps deleting factually correct information from the List of conflicts in Canada article. I discussed the matter with him at the articles user talk page. He disagrees with the reverts and has posted me as a sock puppet of someone named WritersCramp Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/WritersCramp. Would you please remove my name from the request page and speak this person about proper etiquette at Misplaced Pages. If you believe I am a sockpuppet of this editor please close my wiki account. I will move on to another hobby. Thank you SirIsaacBrock 00:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Not a checkuser request. Essjay 16:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved back again. I do not know what you mean by this is not a check user request?! I am requesting a check user against another user, which people are claiming is my sock puppet. It is the only way to clear up the issue. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 00:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC) 00:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)(Moved out of the <!-- --> tags. Essjay 01:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC))

Your request says: "Would you please remove my name from the request page and speak this person about proper etiquette at Misplaced Pages. If you believe I am a sockpuppet of this editor please close my wiki account." It does not say request that a checkuser be run, thus, it is not a checkuser request; instead, it asks that a user be admonished (this isn't the place for that) or an account be "closed" (this isn't a bank, we don't "close" accounts; if you want it "closed," just stop using it). If you want a checkuser run, then you need to say "Please run a checkuser on User:X and User:Y due to ." Your second message seems to suggest you want a checkuser run on your own account; if that is the case, please say so very clearly, as your initial request doesn't mention that at all. Essjay 01:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay please do a check user, thank u SirIsaacBrock 02:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Inconclusive. Essjay 05:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Inconclusive ?? why ? Either we have the same IP or we don't have the same IP. If it is inconclusive, as an Administrator would you please take my name down from the Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/WritersCramp article, thank you. SirIsaacBrock 10:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Inconclusive because we can only check what we have records for. Unfortunately, there are no recent records for WritersCramp, so there is simply nothing to check against. Checkuser is not magic wiki pixie dust that solves all problems; it is one of many tools used for detecting sockpuppetry. The evidence that matters is the editing pattern; checkuser serves simply to confirm or reject, where possible, that which the community has already had cause to believe. In this case, the checkuser evidence is neutral. Essjay 10:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but the important thing is my name comes down from the Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/WritersCramp are you going to be able to complete this task ? If not, what options do I have now ? SirIsaacBrock 11:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Checkusers do not generally act on the results; that is the responsibility of admins who are more informed in the situation. Raise the issue on WP:ANI. Essjay 11:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

AbortMe (talk · contribs) and Pro-Lick (talk · contribs)

Pro-Lick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) turned up at the Abortion article a few weeks ago, and began to edit war, going grossly over three reverts per day. He arrived just after Halliburton_Shill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had been indefinitely blocked, and may be the same user, as he showed considerable familiarity with Misplaced Pages (adding categories, etc.), and they made the same arguments, and had the same editing pattern, and the same habit of deleting other people's comments from their talk page. (If so, there is no problem, as Halliburton Shill was banned for his user name, and is presumably free to return under a new identity.) Pro-Lick has been blocked a few times for 3RR, and has also carried out violations for which he was not reported.

Just after Pro-Lick's latest block (48 hours) AbortMe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appeared at the abortion article, and began to revert to Pro-Lick's version, also showing considerable familiarity with Misplaced Pages. The only other editor who seems to support and revert to these versions is Alienus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is an established user, though one who edit wars, engages in personal attacks, deletes comments from his talk page, and has been blocked several times. Alienus is probably not connected to this user / these users. Thank you. AnnH ♫ 09:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed: Pro-Lick is Halliburton Shill, and, additionally (as shown below) are AbortMe, Cry Me a Shill, and Vote Machine Malfunction. Essjay 16:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Cry Me a Shill (talk · contribs)

RFCU on user: a) to compare against Vote Machine Malfunction (talk · contribs) and b to check against 3RR violation on Abortion as users first edits were very controversial and possibly bad-faith. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 15:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed: Cry_Me_a_Shill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), AbortMe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Vote_Machine_Malfunction (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are the same user. Essjay 16:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker (talk · contribs), and Danteferno (talk · contribs)

User Deathrocker has recently been banned for one month afte a grand total of 70 policy violations in 3 days. Danteferno has been placed under Arbcom Parole, and has been known to use sockpuppets to violate his bans.

The reason for this suspicion is that neither of the users have ever appeared to edit at the same time, when one is around, the other has seemingly dissapeared. When one however gets banned, the other reappears until they are banned, which mystically is when the other reappears again.

Apart from this, both users also have violated the policys, and made the same grandiose claims, featuring such things as the boasting that policys dont apply to them, sources/citations only count if they agree, that only their POV is allowed on articles, and other Wikipedians have to have their express permission to edit articles.

This isnt the only similarities however, both users have edited the same articles, and both make claims that users have done things in relation to them, which happened to the other. This mostly happens when Wikilawyering, with Danteferno claiming incidents that happened with Deathrocker has being against him, and Deathrocker making claims that he posted x comments, when it was Dantferno who has posted them.

These two users have been recognised by both the Abbirition Committe, the ANI, the Mediation Committe, various Admins, the Wikiproject Metal and many other Wikipedians, as serially deconstructive users who have little to no intrest in editing in good faith. This is also confirmed with both users threatening and carrying out the use of Sockpuppets to disrupt and vandalise Misplaced Pages articles and policy pages when bans are given for their policy violations.

As such, it has become of note to find out if this is two users working together to disrupt Misplaced Pages, or wether it is one user using multiple accounts in violation of WP:SOCK. Ley Shade 02:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

None of the information above from User:Leyasu is true; User:Leyasu has been in countless edit/flame wars with various Misplaced Pages editors since November 2005 (See his block history : http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Leyasu) and is currently on Misplaced Pages:Probation, Misplaced Pages Revert Parole and Misplaced Pages Personal Attack Parole after an ArbCase involving him and I - sanctions which he has profusely violated.

His latest attempt to accuse me of sockpuppetry is absolutely ludicrous. I have no other names on Misplaced Pages, nor do I need any. Ironically, User:Leyasu evaded a 3RR block using IP addresses 81.157.88.186 & 81.157.93.18 User:Leyasu made edits using "81.157.93.18" in his own journal, further showing proof of an IP WP:SOCK..--Danteferno 04:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

This has just proven my point, as the ip adress where only associated with me by Deathrocker after admin Sceptre has banned Deathrocker for one month. The anons where also confirmed to only be using the same ISP as me, not to actually be related to me. This shows further evidence of exactly what i have aaid.

Other things that are typical of either is the 'X person said is not true', which is a format both have used extensivly, as noted on this evidence page for the abbiration case against Deathrocker, which is on the basis of the same things Danteferno was found guilty of.

This check serves two purposes, firstly to close the investigation into Danteferno and Deathrockers seemingly close association, and claims that they both repeat when they apparantly have no association with each other, like the above. And also if it is found that they are the same person, to be included directly into the evidence of the Deathrocker abbirition case, and also for the abbirition committe to decide what to do about the Danteferno name as well. Ley Shade 13:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Inconclusive. Essjay 16:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet abuse at Talk:Anne-Marie of Greece

Of the people who voted in this WP:RM discussion, the following have very few edits and are likely to be related to each other in some way:

Stevepeterson (236 edits), ALEKSANDAR (47 edits), Arnegjor (82 edits), Steliosmpikakis (12 edits), Cocos (4 edits), Jtcd (didn't even vote himself, vote given by 84.9.57.40; user has 9 edits, IP one), Bergerac (2 edits), Svetlyo (136 edits, but almost exclusively to the pages of the former monarchs of Greece).

I could simply close the vote as "no consensus" and then still move the page, following naming conventions on nobility, but I'd prefer for some checkusering to take place first. Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 08:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed. All of the above users, save Bergerac, are the same person. Mackensen (talk) 01:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to double-check: All of them are the same person, except for Bergerac, so the users I've listed above constitute two legit votes in total? Thanks for the speedy reply. Cheers, —Nightstallion (?) 04:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

All users above except Stevepeterson and Bergerac have been blocked as sockpuppets, and Stevepeterson has been warned. Is there anything else that should be done now? —Nightstallion (?) 06:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Given that Bergerac only has two edits, I wouldn't call his vote legitimate (that is, most wouldn't count it). Yes, you have it right. Mackensen (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Declined requests

If you add more information and would like the request to be considered again, move it back to the "pending" section

User:Roitr

Sockpuppests of a long-term vandal Roitr should be identified and blocked:

• Markdanil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mikhai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Valentinnaksh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Duduvak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Uyrik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--Nixer 14:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't set out a case for the connection between users; if it is obvious from the contributions, please list on AN/I for an administrator to block. If not, please explain what leads you to believe they are sockpuppets. Essjay 06:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It is obvious from their edits (though all edits by Uyrik already deleted). I twice placed it into AN but no administrator took any action or made reply. I dont know what to do now.--Nixer 06:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

PeyoteMan (talk · contribs)

Requesting Checkuser of this user.

Based on the history of the IP address 67.182.238.38 that belonged to Waya sahoni (talk · contribs) and Gadugi (talk · contribs) (He edits the page forgetting to login then login and continue editing that is how this IP address is known) and the editing of this page : http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:PeyoteMan&oldid=46166627

PeyoteMan seems to be a Sockpuppet of Waya sahoni (talk · contribs) and Gadugi (talk · contribs) both users were banned. --Kebron 13:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this crosses the line ]. To whit, "Vigilant (talk · contribs · logs) User has posted on several chat rooms soliciting sex from my underage daughter and stalking my family. ISP Sonic.net has been notified by San Jose Police and Utah law Enforcement. Sonic.net is preparing to revoke the account under the terms of their usage agreements."

WP:NLT, WP:SOCK, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL. How many more violations does this person (Jeffrey Vernon Merkey) get before an admin takes this seriously?

Someone needs to deal with this. Allegations of pedophelia are way, way out of bounds. You soil your daughter to try to smear me? The gloves come off now, Jeff. Vigilant 00:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Since the account has now been indef blocked, this checkuser request is now moot. — MediaMangler 02:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Robert A West (talk · contribs) and Pmanderson (talk · contribs)

Participants in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine/Proposed decision, the preceding RFC, and numerous disputes before and after this relating to Democratic peace theory and various other related articles about this or other advantages of democracy. Their edit pattern is very similar. Both Pmanderson (also known as Septentrionalis) and Robert A West have created and edited numerous articles about various Baron West and Earl De La Warr. Their edits show extremely deep knowledge about this particular aristocratic family. They have also both edited similarly in conflicts, including voting, on Imbros and Tenedos and articles related to Pine Barrens Ultramarine 17:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If there is an open arbitration case, raise the issue there; the Committee can order a check if they deem it necessary. Essjay 16:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ilir pz (talk · contribs) Mark ma (talk · contribs) Ben uk (talk · contribs)

I have been noticing a pattern of 3RR by Ilir pz (talk · contribs), then changing to unsigned reverts and sockpuppets, going on in the Kosovo article (also sporadic use of throwaway accounts, such as Isa Mulaj (talk · contribs)).

Ilir pz (talk · contribs) has also admitted using IP spoofing here and here and his intention to create new usernames. He then proceeded to remove references to any of these comments from his own talk page and other users'.

Please pay attention to how both of Ilir pz (talk · contribs)'s sockpuppets, Ben uk (talk · contribs) and Mark ma (talk · contribs) are fond of using "  :))))) " in their comments (See Special:Contributions/Ilir_pz and compare with Special:Contributions/Mark_ma and Special:Contributions/Ben_uk) using a very similar style of comments and flaming. Their usernames also respond to the pattern FirstName PlaceName, which is highly peculiar.

There is also a possible link with 158.143.162.111, 158.143.162.251 and similar IP addresses. One of this has recently been used to edit the evidence page, in order to remove references to Ilir pz or his sockpuppets.

I would appreciate prompt action taken. Please note that I know the rules and this request is therefore neither vandalism nor arbitration related.

Refer to for more details.

Regards, Asterion 12:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Reject; I don't see evidence of serious policy violations. Please provide specific diffs to show where 3RR was being grossly violated (and if it's really obvious, list it at WP:AN/3RR first, and bring here if a checkuser is requested). We can't run checkusers on every possible 3RR violation; there are simply too many. Essjay 17:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Inactive project pages
• Misplaced Pages sockpuppetry