Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/BballJones

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

BballJones



 * Code Letter: F
 * Code Letter: F

I was alerted to possible sockpuppet ban evasion here. Getaway at least admits that Bballjones is his friend and that they work together on edits here. They edit with the same tone, language, attitude and POV, which is at the least very suspicious, particularly given some of the timing and content of the edits.

Question for the checkuser/admin that handles this case: If the checkuser is inconclusive, what would be the best way to handle the possible bad faith block evasion by proxy? Getting a friend to edit for you when you are banned is certainly against the spirit, if not the letter, of Wikipedia, isn't it? Vassyana 03:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, the checkuser case pages only concern themselves with IP evidence -- issues like duck tests or how to interpret CU results in light of other evidence are frequently handled at WP:AN/I or WP:SSP, among others. – Luna Santin  (talk) 04:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

unless there is evidence of a community ban. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

BballJones




Edits from the two users are suspicious for the following reasons:
 * 1) They are working in tandem to revert edits to articles, like Stem cell research controversy.
 * 2) Of all the articles in Wikipedia, the two users have intense interest in the same topics (like Condi Rice, Stem Cell Research, and Sam Brownback) which are not all that closely tied. See Getaway edits and [ BballJones edits].
 * 3) Getaway, with only several days experience feels quite qualified to leave administrator-style notes on other people's talk pages explaining Wikipedia policy.
 * 4) Getaway left a message on my page re Condi Rice which was strange because I have never edited that article (he meant to leave it regarding stem cell research controversy), but then BballJones expanded on the comment, also in regard to stem cell research, still without correcting the Condi Rice reference. I would have thought one of two people (if they were separate) would have got it right. The first comment was left after my first edit to stem cells, the second after the second revert. It's also strange that they both felt the need to write notes on the talk page rather than just edit the article as is normal when you disagree with what is written. Two people with the identical interest in articles, identical thoughts as to how they should be written, and identical approaches to editing articles and talk pages.

A sockpuppet case can be found here: Suspected sock puppets/BballJones

The advice given to me by the admin was:


 * Hello. I feel that there is not enough firm technical evidence to support your claim. Yes, the editing behavior is odd, but I feel that it is slightly week; however, I am urging you to take the matter to request for check user for additional support. This will determine if they are coming from the same person. Just slightly copy and paste the text you added to the SSP case to the RFCU case. The instructions are on the page. Apologies and regards, Iola k ana |T  [ 18:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)]

Regards, Deet 23:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Mackensen (talk) 00:00, 2 August 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.''