Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Chadbryant

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

Chadbryant



 * Code letter:B'''

There seems to be clear circumstantial evidence here that Paul Harald Kaspar could be a sockpuppet of the blocked user Chadbryant. Paul has taken up the torch of removing mentions of wrestling from the descriptions of various arenas, and has already been blocked twice as a result. Avruch talk 20:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As is, there's not much which can be done here, thus this is  -  A l is o n  ❤ 20:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * When it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.... One Night In Hackney  303  20:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, is there overlap here with the User:King of Cable case? Feel free to paste a fish! See also the thread at WP:AN/I regarding the block review of Paul Harald Kaspar. Avruch talk 20:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Problem is, User:King Of Cable is also -  A l is o n  ❤ 20:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * is the overlap. That one's a definite Chadbryant sockpuppet (see here) and IAW was blocked for being a sockpuppet of KOC. Chadbryans is a long term banned vandal, it's clearly him. Removal of wrestling events from venue articles, edits to KISS and Black Sabbath articles etc etc. One Night In Hackney  303  20:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * again! - sorry, Hackie - A l is o n  ❤ 21:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There's additional information which makes this almost certainly a Chadbryant sock. As Alison notes, the checkuser logs on these accounts is too stale to confirm or deny, but that is not the only source of information. The account has now been blocked indefinitely as a Chadbryant sock. --Yamla (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Some more Chadbryant



 * Code letter: none; see below

Yes, yes, we don't do self-requested checks, we rarely do checks not directly related to a code letter etc. etc. - I know the routine. However, this user was blocked as a result of being what I would consider the most blatantly obvious sockpuppet of Chadbryant I have ever seen - see. User is was "trolling" their userpage with requesting a checkuser.

Now, and this is also unusual, I know, what I would like if this is accepted is a response where the benefit of the doubt lies with the blocking admin, rather than the accused. Given the diffs we have, it is extremely suggestive; however, if the checkuser results come back with no possible links (eg. no proxies, in different countries etc.), then the admins may have to grant a benefit of the doubt. If they're in the same area, state even, or proxies are somehow involved, the admins will simply discard the technical evidence as being not 100% either way, and go on the diffs. I hope you get my drift :) Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 11:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am the blocking administrator. It seemed clear to me but the user subsequently promised he was not a sockpuppet.  On the basis that we need to double-check administrators when they admit they may have made a mistake, I'd like a checkuser performed here as well.  Please.  --Yamla 20:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

✅, clear match. Dmcdevit·t 22:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Chadbryant


Type F. I have a suspicion that after being blocked for a week for repeated violation of 3RR, this user continued editing under the name twentyboy. My reasoning: Thanks for your help. yandman 08:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * IP 65.31.99.71's first edit to WP was to make a small stylistic change to one of Chad's talk page edits, and he started editing after Chad was blocked.
 * Twentyboy started editing just after Chad was blocked, and started off by posting a message on the talk page of Chad's favourite article, the "Randy Orton" talk.
 * After being warned by me for posting inappropriate content on article talk pages, Twentyboy started threatening me at User_talk:Yandman, but forgot to log in for his last message, signed IP 65.31.99.71.

No link to the community discussion that led to a community-based ban. Please note that 3RR blocks are not community-based bans. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Where do I report this then? I can't find a "situation" in the table that fits the case. What does one do to report "Evasion of 3RR-based bans or blocks"? I would have taken this to ANI, but I can't prove that Chadbryant=Twentyboy. yandman  20:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Does anyone have a clue as to what to do? At ANI, they told me to come here. And here, you tell me to go somewhere else. Where? yandman  07:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: A 3rr block would be code E. MER-C 10:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Type E asks for 4 diffs showing 3RR violations by the puppets. He didn't break 3RR with sockpuppets, though. He broke it with his original account, and then made another one to continue editing despite the ban, so I don't think E is the right type either. yandman  11:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Chadbryant




I am requesting a checkuser on my own account and that of User:Mark Van Pelt to confirm that it is not my sockpuppet. User:Tyrenius has blocked User:Mark Van Pelt indefinitely for being my sockpuppet, yet did not bother to request a checkuser to confirm this. In addition, he is choosing to post intimidating mesages to my talk page rather than honor a legitimate request by me for him to investigate this matter further before blocking someone else's account. - Chadbryant 14:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Chadbryant




Due to his outlandish and beligerent behavior on Wikipedia, I formally request a Checkuser on Chadbryant and Chud Manzier. As Mr. Bryant seems to be so inclined as to accuse me of being a sockpuppet, I feel that I have no choice but to return the favor. Dooby Scoo 06:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I already filed a similar request a little while ago, and the results were inconclusive. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Mackensen (talk) 02:49, 24 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.''