Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Coloane

Coloane


There is an ongoing pattern of disruptive behavior with this editor. User:Coloane was recently blocked for violating the 3RR on Russia. Another editor expressed frustration that the editor was also being disruptive on the Singaporean articles:. If you examine the edits made by User:Coloane, User:Fbmmsu and User:Josuechan there is a superficial case that they may all be sockpuppets controlled by the same individual. There is an overlap in the articles they edit and the style of their edit comments - all editors have a habit of writing "+" a lot in their edit comments, specifically "+ comment" or "+ com" for adding comments at talk pages, "+ ref" or "+ reference" for adding references, etc. Indeed, User:Coloane has previously been blocked for block-evasion, and User:Coloane and User:Fbmmsu have played tag team in reverting at Programme for International Student Assessment to force a 3RR violation block of another editor. A checkuser on these accounts would be helpful in understanding exactly what is going on.
 * Code letter: E, G
 * Supporting evidence:
 * Code letter: E, G
 * Supporting evidence:

Additionally, User:Coloane is harassing me for making an unfavorable review at Featured_article_candidates/Macau. The first step of his retaliation was to nominate one of the FA articles I've worked on at Featured_article_review/Indonesia/archive1. That approach failed with the review being quickly closed with the issues raised being dismissed outright, but he then threatened to renominate the same article again at WP:Featured article review on February 1st, 2008. The editor clearly states their motive for renominating Indonesia is revenge here:. Another editor also unfavorably reviewed the Macau article, and the response from User:Coloane was the same: a threat to vote against one of the articles written by the reviewer at WP:FAC. There may also be a violation of Canvassing by this editor - they have asked a number of other like-minded editors to vote at the Macau FA review :, , , ,. Blackmailing other editors and gaming the system to achieve FA status for articles should be a serious cause for concern.

Caniago (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, none of your reason is justified. I don't know who Josuachan is.  User Fbmmsu who is from Russia, was my collegue working together with me in the same hospital here in Ottawa, Canada.  Yes, you are right, I urged him to revert PISA page.  And I think that we didn't go back to that article PISA for a while and edit warring already quenched.  For what you talked about canvassing is not reasonable.  Yes, I notifed some wikipedians that the article Macau is currently on FAC page.  I asked them to give me fair comment/opinion and vote so that the article can improve.  This is nothing related to disruptive edition.  Regards! Coloane (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * moved resulting comments on the talk page. -- lucasbfr  talk 13:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that User:Leungli will probably turn up on a checkuser, as that user says she is Coloane's wife. I'm personally doubtful the others are sockpuppets, although there's certainly some rather strange stuff going on. Orderinchaos 08:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Since Coloane admits contacting Fbmmsu and states that they work in the same place, there's really no reason to run a check. Please provide additional info (diffs) of disruptive behavior involving Coloane and Josuechan. Thatcher 18:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)