Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Barnecaration

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

Barnecaration



 * Code letter: G

Barnecaration was caught impersonating User:Barneca and was misrepresenting him/herself as an administrator by reviewing and declining Requests for unblock despite not having the authority to do so. User has been blocked, but considering Barnecaration's familiarity with Wikipedia policy, it's highly suspected that he/she is a sockpuppet someone who has no qualms about impersonating others and causing further disruption. --  Netsnipe  ►  16:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I assume I have enough of a reputation around here that no one thinks this was me, but if it would help anyone sleep better at night, you're more than welcome to include my account in any checkuser investigation, and I wouldn't consider it a violation of my privacy or anything. --barneca (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Lar means User:Kenservative. There is no User:Kenservativ. --barneca (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You are correct. Call that an oops! :) ++Lar: t/c 01:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Results
Barneca: I see no need to investigate you actually. Additional socks found: Both are ✅ as socks of Barnecaration. Not blocked at this time. Please block and tag as you see fit. ++Lar: t/c 21:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * blocked and tagged. GoodsWiped had his pages redirecting to an admin's as well.  Kwsn   (Ni!)  02:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

After the CU and tagging by Kwsn of, Kenservative placed an unblock request, citing sock policy, which granted. The tagging has been removed so this sock is no longer in the Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Barnecaration. It's true that this particular puppet had no bad edits but it's pretty clearly the same user. I leave it to you to decide what to do but I'm not sure I would have unblocked. ++Lar: t/c 14:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, belay that "no bad edits" bit, the puppet's only edits to mainspace were self reverted as vandalism. ++Lar: t/c 14:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No objections here to the unblock. Kwsn   (Ni!)  17:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh? The editor has no useful edits and is a clear sock. ++Lar: t/c 22:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I honestly thought he might contribute in good faith, and he agreed to some behavioural standards that were his downfall last time. I was about to ask him what that mainspace edit was all about (assuming good faith that it wasn't vandalism), but he threw up the "retired" template before I could (I got edit-conflicted). Now, it seems pretty clear that his intention was as you state on his talk, and so I have readded the sockpuppet template and had the account reblocked. Quite simply, there was no harm in trying, because he shows some 'clue', even if he applied it in the wrong way.  Daniel  03:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The try was worth trying, I agree. Seems sorted now though, thanks for the retag. ++Lar: t/c 12:45, 4 November 2007 (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.''