Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/75.58.34.144

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

75.58.34.144



 * (added after editing similarities put the account under suspicion as the primary sock)
 * (added after editing similarities put the account under suspicion as the primary sock)
 * (added after editing similarities put the account under suspicion as the primary sock)
 * (added after editing similarities put the account under suspicion as the primary sock)
 * (added after editing similarities put the account under suspicion as the primary sock)
 * (added after editing similarities put the account under suspicion as the primary sock)
 * (added after editing similarities put the account under suspicion as the primary sock)


 * C, E:
 * Supporting evidence: Replace this text with the diffs that is required for the above code letter, full details at the top of Requests for checkuser. ONLY PUT DIFFS ON THIS LINE


 * contribs for 75.58.34.144
 * contribs for 75.57.200.103
 * [contribs for 75.58.57.10
 * contribs for 75.58.36.5
 * contribs for 75.58.62.44
 * | contribs for Kapowow
 * contribs for 75.57.165.180 (new account)

All fo the users are single purpose accounts editing within the Fitna article.All share identical editing styles, all are abusive and disruptive. Requests for civility have been ignored in precisely the same way. All the accounts pointedly don't use a sig so as to avoid detection all the better. Lastly, each one of the socks supposedly represent new accounts, and yet the account holder is very well-versed in using wiki policies, implying a level of familiarity incongruent with a newbie. I suspect a budding sockfarm. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  14:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the recent addition, as per the format presented in a wikiquette alert (including the anachronistic - and incorrect - usage of Latin phrases), I am beginning to wonder if all of these aren't interconnected. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  14:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

♠ I am the single anonymous user. My posts all begin with ♠. Arcayne is Forum Shopping due to an action being taken against him by another member on Wikiquette. I'll suggest that due to my CLAIMING these posts AND the fact that NO OTHER editor believes me to be more than a SINGLE editor that this is merely vindictive.75.57.165.180 (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Allow me to clarify: are you saying that the wikiquette posts you are sending to anyone I've ever had a disagreement with are only from your IP address? A simple yes or no will suffice. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  15:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

♠Neutral posts informing editors you've interacted with in the last week roughly have been openly discussed here: and on your personal Talk page. Your formal accusation of me to be engaging in "Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism involving dozens of incidents" and  "3RR violation using socks". is an abuse of wiki and is Forum Shopping. There were no 3RR incidents, it was at the time a semi-protected article and I, a public editor, was locked out - and further NO incidents of Vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.165.180 (talk • contribs)
 * Allow me to clarify: are you saying that you are the only contributor, and that these anon IPs in the report are all yours? Or are you suggesting that this IP - the one you used to post your comment here, is the only one you use? As well, could you be troubled to sign your posts, please? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  15:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

♠*I will further defend myself against the false accusation of sockpuppetry by quoting you:


 * Every other one of the likely socks of the anon show similarly abusive editing patterns, and all use the '♠' as an identifier.

I not only use a distinct identifier - I have a unique voice and refer frequently to my previous writings. This is clearly NOT sockpuppetry, it is an absurd accusation. I claim my posts. 75.57.165.180 (talk) 06:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Tagged all IP addresses as being from the same ISP via a WHOIS query. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  16:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the IP does not deny being the same person on a dynamic range, I'm not sure what Checkuser can do to help :). -- lucasbfr  talk 08:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Would that also include the Kapowow account, used in conjunction with the other edits? It was noted as being all from the same ISP, and if they are all the same, it would be nice to know which account is the primary. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The label "sockpuppet" is generally not applicable to anonymous editors who have dynamic IPs unless they try to pretend to be multiple different people. As long as this editor does not pretend to be multiple people (he wants to be an unregistered "public editor" I guess), you can deal with him as a single person and use the normal dispute resolution processes.  Kapowow is on a different continent.   There's really nothing else for checkuser to do in this case. Thatcher 20:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input, Thatcher. My issue was with the initial report that Seicer noted all of the users being from the same ISP. As well, the checkuser was initiated because the anons were backing up each other's edits (one would vote for something to occur, and another would agree and act on the request for action). If citations are required for that, i am happy to provide them. As well, the user would start a new anon account when a complaint was lodged in the prior anon user talk page, thereby concealing a history of bad behavior. By pointedly avoiding signing (the pretense being this whole 'public editor' nonsense), any previous complaints went unnoticed in the edit history - with the new dynamically-created account, there would be no evidence of any complaint That this user knows their way around wiki policies is pretty clear. I think it isn't too far outside possibility to wonder whether this is a coordinated action, and not simply an anon restarting his modem with his computer. AGF doesn't require us to set aside good common sense. That the anon knew what he was doing is highly probable, seeing as the user has since stuck with one account and made a pont of signing every one of his posts since the filing of the AN/I.
 * However, if you think this is a dead horse, I am equally happy with concluding the matter for now. If that dead horse reanimates, what would you advise my course of action to be? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  21:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There are several good users on the same ISP whose IPs change daily, so I would say insufficient evidence that his frequent IP changes are for the purposes of deliberate evasion. It may be a dsl system with a very short dhcp lease.  If you've really got examples of one IP saying "should we do this" and then another IP saying "yes we should" as if they were different people, I would report that at WP:AN/I for possibly issuing a short-term block for disruption and deception, which is different than merely having a dynamic IP address. Thatcher 01:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thatchers request that you formally charge me at WP:AN/I if you "If you've really got examples of one IP saying "should we do this" and then another IP saying "yes we should" as if they were different people," is good advice. I personally am tired of seeing you throw around false accusations. You formally accused me here of the SPECIFIC charges of "Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism involving dozens of incidents" and  "3RR violation using socks" without a single piece of evidence. Your abuse of peoples time and the judicial mechanisms must stop - this is not the first time you've done this. It's just the rare moment when someone took the time to call your bluff.75.57.165.180 (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have just removed the sock tags added to the IP talk pages by Seicer. Any particular reason why the tags were still there? Avb 00:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, thanks. -- lucasbfr  talk 09:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As the user has moved on to a new IP address of 75.57.186.159, I have taken the liberty of porting over the older conversations that had been sent to the user in his previous "incarnations", serving a dual purpose. First, as the user has claimed the IP range of addresses used, the usertalk discussions belong to him. As posts to a discussion page are supposed to be preserved within the edit history, and cannot with this particular anonymous user, the recreation of those conversations serves as an attempt to preserve those previous conversations (they include links to the discussion page IPs in which they originated).
 * Secondly, this action allows the new poster to the user's account to see if a particular topic or concern has been raised before regarding certain topics (ie., signing posts, civility, etc.), and allows an admin easy access to the user's past, should they be consulted regarding an issue with the user.
 * I was a little unsure as to whether this was the appropriate place to post this notice, so if I was mistaken, please let me know on my usertalk page.- Arcayne   (cast a spell)  18:35, 11 April 2008 (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.''