Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/AnemoneProjectors

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

AnemoneProjectors




User:AnemoneProjectors has admitted on my talk page that he is a sock puppet for the banned user User:JamieAdams/User:Sweetiepetie, saying that I objected to his "Minor characters" page- which he created as Sweetiepetie. Trampik e y (talk to me)(contribs) 18:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see Requests_for_checkuser/Case/JamieAdams and User_talk:Mackensen/Archive10. There is no need to check up on me again! -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

See also Requests for checkuser/Case/JamieAdams. Mackensen allowed AnemoneProjectors to return to editing on parole. If you feel AP has committed policy violations, you can discuss it with Mackensen or bring it to the administrators noticeboard for possible action. Otherwise, there is nothing to investigate here. Thatcher131 18:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher is correct. Absent a demonstrable post-block policy violation AnemoneProjectors is permitted to edit. Mackensen (talk) 20:54, 2 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 .''

JamieAdams




Explanation of the request for CheckUser. Banned user, appears to be using this username on irc. -- 9  cds (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

JamieAdams was indef blocked by Tony Sidaway for this. User:Anemone was created in December, 2005 but has no edits. Did you mean someone else? Thatcher131 17:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've seen IRC evidence that's strong enough for me to block, so I've indef blocked Anemone. A checkuser is not possible without the contribs, but not necessary either. --JoanneB 18:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

If Joanne says a check isn't needed, then we can go ahead and close. Essjay (  Talk  •  Connect  )  07:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I talked to 9cds & Joanne on IRC when the case was submitted & Joanne was satisfied with the IRC evidence & has indef-blocked for being a suspected sock of a banned user. The case has been resolved. --Srikeit (Talk 07:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Appears to be another sock. I'd rather not disclose all my reasons why I think so (contact me on IRC if necessary), but for starters, the above mentioned link with 'Anemone' and also the range of articles that are edited, are suspicious to me. --JoanneB 11:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

✅ against JamieAdams; no contribs to check against for Anemone. Essjay (  Talk  •  Connect  )  11:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know if I should mention this here but if you're planning on banning me please can you read my comments on User_talk:Mackensen. Thank you. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I rarely block anyone based on checkuser investigations; my job is to investigate and report. It's up to others to act on the report. If Mackensen is okay with unblocking, that's fine with me. Essjay  (  Talk  •  Connect  )  11:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Without commenting directly on this request, I'm prepared to allow AnemoneProjectors to edit under a kind of parole, subject to his good behavior. I've received assurances to this regard that I deem sufficient, at least for the time being. I suggest doing nothing further for now. Mackensen (talk) 11:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

JamieAdams (2nd Time)



Username is similar to Anemone, proven to by sock. Has just joined WP:WPEE as User:Sweetiepetie left, proven to be sock. Qu e ntin Smith 14:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

AnemoneProjectors has admitted this. Mackensen has unblocked, subject to parole. You should discuss this with him. Thatcher131 14:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Just for information, User:Anemone is nothing to do with me. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:49, 16 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.''