Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cumulus Clouds

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

Cumulus Clouds
Suspected Puppet I was opposed to this initial checkuser, because at the time the user did nothing wrong and I felt he simply wanted a chance to make a new account and leave his old one behind, which all users should have the chance to do. However, as it seems the new account had only a single purpose, to mask the degree of his involvement in an ANI, and was indefinitely blocked, Cumulus Clouds is now evading his indefinite block by continuing to edit. Cumulus Clouds first stopped editting on 8 November 2008, after a short block, and TGH1970 began editting on 20 November 2008. After he did not receive the answer he wanted at ANI and was blocked on 6 December 2008, he went and editted more with Cumulus Clouds beginning 10 December 2008. Based on the time differences it is very plausible, however more evidence must be given. Judging purely by the users interactions with others I'd have to say the two accounts act the same, and others agree. More specific evidence, the ANI that TGH1970 brought up had entirely to do with an external website called the Something Aweful forums, which Cumulus Clouds is familiar with. Secondly, as TGH1970 he posted a !vote (the only vote he posted) on RMHED's arbcom election here, which makes reference to their previous interaction on Cumulus Clouds here, here, and here. That is the only discussion with any editor involving talk page deletions that RMHED remembers (which he says here). Along with more evidence shown in the declined request (which I will repeat here for conciseness), such as a tendency to delete warning messages from his talk page (Cumulus Clouds here and TGH1970 here), and talk down directly to users within his edit summaries (Cumulus Clouds here and TGH1970 here). Finally, looking at his comments below I feel TGH1970 was more badgering users here at the checkuser to prevent his puppet from being discovered rather than out of a feeling of upholding the sanctity of privacy. Overall I feel TGH1970's behavior is exactly like Cumulus Clouds' behavior. Thanks if you can look into this, I really don't want anyone to get around a block without going through the proper procedures. Banime (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Code letter: F
 * Supporting evidence:
 * Supporting evidence:
 * I agree with User:Banime that a checkuser is in order. User:Cumulus Clouds sought to prevent any reference to Geoff Simpson's arrest prior to this November's election, even though it was a well-sourced incident. I was one of the editors who fought to include it. (Please see Talk:Geoff Simpson for the full story). Within 6 minutes of registering an account User:TGH1970 nominated 3 of my fair use images for deletion., ,. Clearly, TGH1970 had Wikipedia experience from the beginning. When you couple that with his targeting of my images, filing an AIN against User:Banime (who also participated in the Geoff Simpson article incident), the fact that all of TGH1970's edits came during periods of Cumulus Clouds inactivity, the circumstantial evidence indicates that Cumulus Clouds is TGH1970. Please also note that I did not participate in the earlier Cumulus Clouds checkusers. --HoboJones (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked into the article history now to find more specific diffs of my involvement in that article's talk page, and I found a few times where I participate in the discussion and provide some reminders of good faith to Cumulus Clouds and anyone else getting edgy here and here. The specific talk page links are Talk:Geoff_Simpson and Talk:Geoff_Simpson. --Banime (talk) 01:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I expect as much from HoboJones, who has supported previous efforts to have me blocked, but I don't recollect any prior interactions with Banime so I'm a little confused as to why they're filing this RFCU. I stopped editing Geoff Simpson in October, exactly like I said I would. And while HoboJones had to go back for a little tit-for-tat, that article has remained completely stable (and edit-free) since that time.


 * The diff citing SomethingAwful is an extraordinary (and somewhat funny) reach, since it was one of the first edits I made to this encyclopedia, over two and a half years ago. I have not been involved with that website since December 2006. As for the RMHED talk page edit, yes I was annoyed that he had it restored (and I did not seek to have it deleted again), but there were actually many users involved in that discussion: here, here and here. Since that time RHMED has undergone an RFA where his contributions were scrutinized, so I have little doubt that many people are aware of that problem. That particular dispute is also several months old, so I don't why anyone thinks that I would have been interested in rehashing it four months later. I have 0 interest in maintaining any kind of dispute with RHMED, since I clearly have enough to deal with as it is.


 * I've already posted a notice at ANI explaining my departure. Resuming here again and suddenly coming under attack from HoboJones is hardly surprising, but filing a pointless RFCU (which has already apparently been rejected once) is a new tactic in his campaign to silence his opponents. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And let me say one more thing about all of this: I have been a registered user since March 2006. Since that time my integrity has been absolutely unimpeachable. I have made over 6000 edits to this project and I have never previously encountered the obstructionists that I'm seeing now. I departed for a month precisely for this reason, and to have to come back and go through all of it again is chilling to any desire I may have for future involvement in this encyclopedia. I would hope that this request gets re-rejected and that an administrator will provide me with the ability to edit uninhibited by people like HoboJones. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and can somebody explain to me the violation I'm being accused of here? User:TGH1970 has not made any edits to any articles that I have. There can't be any votestacking or 3RR violations, since I only resumed editing yesterday. So I'm not exactly sure what the point in all of this is, except a collossal waste of my time. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Herein lies the answer to that question: . Even though RHMED acknowledges that no violations have occurred, Banime wants to be "extra sure" by filing a checkuser which could more accurately be described as a "fishing expedition." The previous (and identical) checkuser was rejected twice (note: as was his third checkuser on this same issue), but I guess we'll have to make it four times before some people are convinced that no means no. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to stop Cumulus Clouds from putting words in my mouth at this point. If you click the diff he links to, it shows that I said I want to be "extra sure" that I'm following all policies before going through with a checkuser. --Banime (talk) 12:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Cumulus Clouds style of speaking and behavior here match his behavior as TGH1970. Specifically as TGH1970 here and Cumulus Cloud here they both refer to this very checkuser as a "fishing expedition" (nowhere does it say fishing expedition on WP:Checkuser). The habit of replying multiple times to himself is a habit of both Cumulus Clouds here and TGH1970 here (see the previous replies were all after himself, and all using the same "colon asterisk" form of replying that Cumulus Clouds and TGH1970 both use on this checkuser page). As Cumulus Clouds he uses similar wording as TGH1970 often, including when Cumulus Clouds said RMHED's contributions were scrutinized here and where TGH1970 said my contributions should be scrutinized here. Finally, no one here mentioned to Cumulus Clouds that this checkuser was taking place, in which case it is possible he was searching through all of my contributions as TGH1970 had here. Also, Cumulus Clouds says RMHED's edits were looked at by others at his RfAs in which case someone could have seen the talk page interaction with Cumulus Clouds that TGH1970 brings up, however in both RFAs here and here there is no mention of that incident, therefore the only person that had specific experience with it is Cumulus Clouds and TGH1970. As you can see from his edits here, he has an intimate knowledge of what TGH1970 went through and his behavior is identical. I'm repeating this for Cumulus Clouds who said there was no reason for this: TGH1970 was banned indefinitely for disruption, and not wanting to be responsible for his multiple actions (deletions, ANI, arbcom vote) hes using this account to get around his block. --Banime (talk) 11:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, User:Alison used the term "fishing expedition" in her declining of the first RFCU at the bottom of this page. Second of all, nobody has a monopoly on certain words. Third, I found this checkuser by searching through HoboJones' contributions as a direct result of filing the stalking case against Orpheus at ANI. Considering I've now had four of these things filed against me (two of them by you), it shouldn't surprise anyone that I know how to navigate my way to this page. TGH1970 was not banned. That account was blocked indefinitely. And it was blocked for disruptive editing, which in itself is not a block that would extend to any other accounts. Specifically, I have not shown any signs of disruption, however you have continued to use RFCU abusively in filing as many reports as you think will prevent me from ever editing this project again. There is no evidence of disruption from me and therefore I cannot have violated the precepts at SSP and therefore this checkuser is unnecessary and fishing after you yourself acknowledged there was no need for it. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This reply proves Cumulus Clouds has a definite link to TGH1970. He says there were "four of these things filed against me (two of them by you)".  There are only three against Cumulus Clouds (see archived ones), however there is an additional one against TGH1970 which adds up to four. Also, I have only filed one (this) checkuser against Cumulus Clouds.  I have however, filed one against TGH1970 and one against Cumulus Clouds (this one, as mentioned before), which makes two in total, which is what Cumulus Clouds said above.  Please stop trying to evade your block, just go through the proper procedures, thanks. --Banime (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Calm down. There have been four (two filed by BQZip01), I mistook the one below as being filed by you. All your evidence has been presented, you don't need to agitate on this page any further. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The bolding is because you are on this page that is linked to (they are actually links) and is not emphasis added by me, so don't worry I think we're all pretty calm and just want to get to the bottom of this. --Banime (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Inprogress There is something that does not smell right about both some of the filing parties as well as the filed parties. Furthermore, this request has been recurring in the past few weeks, and there is evidence of disruption to the project from all sides. -- Avi (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

All of the following relate to HoboJones, one of the filing parties here: ✅ Currently available technical and behavioral evidence indicates that the following accounts are related:

Currently available technical and behavioral evidence indicates that the following accounts are likely related to HoboJones:

Currently available technical and behavioral evidence indicates that the following accounts are possibly related to HoboJones:

-- Avi (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

-- Avi (talk) 07:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Confirmed socks blocked and tagged, HoboJones blocked for 1 year. X clamation point  00:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Cumulus Clouds
Suspected Puppet The possible connection between new account TGH1970 and CC was brought to my attention on my talk page (User_talk:Protonk) by User:RMHED noticed a behavioral similarity between the two accounts. The initial suspicion for filing this is listed the the previous (declined) RFCU for TGH: RFCU. I'm opening this up and will ask RMHED and Banime to provide specific diffs and evidence as they are more familiar with possible relationships. Please do not archive this until they have commented, a reasonable period of time has passed, or you feel that it is very unlikely that a request would be granted at all. Protonk (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Code letter: G
 * Supporting evidence:
 * Supporting evidence:


 * Comment

User:Cumulus Clouds is a user in good standing who has not edited since November 7.

This account was registered on November 20, fully 13 days later. There is no overlap. Cumulus Clouds has not edited since November 7 and since that time has not been suspected in any violations of policy or sockpuppetry. Nor am I. This is a fishing expedition at it's finest and it should be rejected. TGH1970 (talk) 04:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This looks like it should be taken to WP:SSP, but as CC is not blocked now, it is not a B or F, and this appears too much like fishing to be a straight G. Is there any more evidence? -- Avi (talk) 06:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, we need more evidence here.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 11:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Some things: I'd have to preface these diffs with a statement. The other checkuser I brought up because I thought it was a strong possibility he was a blocked user getting around his block. Cumulus Clouds is not blocked, despite having a rowdy and confrontational past, and I already know that any Checkusers here will utilize extreme discretion before agreeing to a checkuser but I'd like to urge you to continue to use extreme discretion anyway. If there is no reason at all to checkuser these accounts then please do not. At the same time if someone feels that one should be followed through I will provide these diffs of possible links for anyone who wishes to pursue that, but I stand by my statement that it, most likely, should not be done so far in this situation. Now on to the diffs if someone feels the need to pursue this link. Both users have histories of removing negative messages or warning from their talk pages. Cumulus Clouds here, here, and here and TGH1970 here. Both users have shown tendencies to talk directly to the user whose edits they are deleting with harsh or negative edit summaries Cumulus Clouds here and TGH1970 here --Banime (talk) 11:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * None of that is any kind of evidence of anything. Nor would it ever justify running a checkuser. Can we finally close this thing please? TGH1970 (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I do not think that is a sufficient correlation to run a checkuser test, and I will have to mark this current request. -- Avi (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

There has been a request to hold off archiving this page as more evidence may be forthcoming. -- Avi (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you can probably archive it. RMHED got the message about this at the same time as Banime.  I assume that he doesn't have too much in the form of hard evidence to add that Banime hasn't already and I assume (based on his multiple edits after my edit to his talk page) that he has seen my message.  Thanks for being patient. Protonk (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I submitted the last checkuser about CC and I see nothing in this that makes even the most remote of a case for checkuser. Lots of people remove warnings from their talk pages. I've interacted with CC on many occasions. I've disagreed with him at extreme length and I see nothing similar with this account.
 * That said, I can certainly see how User:TGH1970 fits the profile of a sockpuppet. Reviewing the past of this account, you will note the use of edit summaries from the get-go. You will note that the talk page and user page were filled in and then blanked (almost immediately at account creation) in a clear attempt to remove red links in signature links/edit summaries. This person is clearly a veteran of Wikipedia and is likely a sock, IMHO.
 * ...but this person isn't CC (and you won't find me defending CC much). — BQZip01 —  talk 02:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 *  — Rlevse • Talk  • 04:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Cumulus Clouds



 * TOR node:
 * TOR node:
 * Code letter: E/G
 * Supporting evidence: Please look at the contribs of these IPs (total of 8 edits)
 * TOR node:
 * TOR node:
 * Code letter: E/G
 * Supporting evidence: Please look at the contribs of these IPs (total of 8 edits)

IMHO, this is either an attempt to evade a WP:3RR block via this ruling or is continued harassment by user:TomPhan (previously blocked in another rfcu). Which one? I am not sure. I am highly suspect in these two three IP contributions. All have no other substantial contributions other than to pages on which I have worked, and two edit summaries use the same sentence structure. While the throwaway account fits TomPhan's modus operandi, the citation of a non-existent consensus through discussion on the talk page or demand for nonexistent policy as the reasons for this actions fit the actions of Cumulus Clouds. I would like some sort of confirmation as to which path should be taken: WP:ANI, WP:3RR, or WP:SSP; the outcome of this rfcu determines which action to take so I don't make a spurious allegation. — BQZip01 — talk 04:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Checkusers responding to this request should be aware that it occurs in the context of an ongoing RfC initiated by BQZip against Cumulus Cloud - the RfC was begun after an MfD on an evidence page in BQZip's userspace was closed directing BQ to file or delete it. Its been a contentious RfC, with numerous related AN threads and its even been deleted and restored once via CSD. Avruch  T 05:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Concur with Avruch's assessment, in general, but would like to point out that the the aforementioned page that was attempted to be MfD'd was always intended as a prep for a WP:ANI, RfC, or RfA. — BQZip01 —  talk 05:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * WHOis shows two IPs are from Washington, Maryland and another from Deleware (awfully close together...). — BQZip01 —  talk 06:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Added another IP who made a bad faith edit to this page...surprise, surprise it is the user's only edit... — BQZip01 —  talk 02:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 201.210.90.212 is a TOR node. I've reported it for blocking. Franamax (talk) 03:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The one from Italy fits the same profile. — BQZip01 —  talk 04:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Reported. TOR nodes may be of limited use for checkuser, I've modified the header above so the CU is aware of the IP node status. Franamax (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

For some reason, the user in good standing Cumulus Clouds was not notified of this RFCU. I have done so. Lawrence §  t / e  19:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read the directions for WP:RFCU; there is no requirement to do so. Furthermore:   — BQZip01 —  talk 21:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not seeking a block of either of these users due to these actions unless they are confirmed. In such a case, I will request such a block in another appropriate venue. — BQZip01 —  talk 21:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - All of TomPhan's socks were blocked as part of this previous RFCU request, which makes this one kind of redundant. I also noticed the edit to BQ, but I assure you I have lost all interest in continuing that debate. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, in re: the request for "confirmation as to which path to take:" checkuser is not for fishing. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't take this one so personally. For the most part, I believe you, BUT there is that nagging doubt in the back of my mind. TomPhan's socks were indeed blocked on his last request. If this isn't you, then he has gone to IP editing...which is also sockpuppetry. I am not fishing for who it is. I am pretty sure it is you or him ( I feel that LawrenceCohen might be obnoxious, but this doesn't fit his style and therefore this isn't him. Considering I have no beef with anyone else and/or these patterns don't fit anyone else, I'm forced to think it is CC or TP). If it isn't you, then you have nothing to fear. This is why I tried this before dragging your name to WP:ANI, but Lawarence Cohen just had to cause more controversy and stir up trouble... — BQZip01 —  talk 03:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Retract these personal attacks. I also took nothing to ANI, I left a note on CC's page that you RFCU'd him. Consider yourself warned under WP:NPA. Lawrence  §  t / e  06:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I retract nothing, but clarity added above. Geez, dude, I was trying to show that you didn't have anything to do with this no matter how much I disagree with you. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "LawrenceCohen might be obnoxious" & "Lawarence Cohen just had to cause more controversy and stir up trouble..." OK, I AGF. Lawrence  §  t / e  06:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why I said "might". Things were fine here and were simply awaiting a checkuser until you decided to inflame the situation and figuratively say, "Hey! let's make this a debate page!" CC didn't need to know or weigh in on this. You have an agenda against me and have stated so. Your wikistalking is disruptive and only incites more problems. Furthermore, your honesty is questionable when you state, "I also took nothing to ANI"...
 * As it stands now, nothing has been solved here. Someone is clearly trying to cause problems for me. It's probably TP, but I now have no way of knowing. Your kind of "help" only causes the kinds of problems you want to cause by your agenda to bully me. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know how else I could have taken it, you filed this RFCU in my name instead of TomPhan's and made similar remarks over on SSP. Considering our history and the seemingly endless clashes we've had I don't know why you would exacerbate it by filing this. You're right that I have nothing to fear, but in the meanwhile I don't know when you're going to give up this crusade you're on and finally let this thing rest. For my own peace of mind, I certainly hope it's soon. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The purpose of this page is not to continue your dispute. Allow this page to serve its purpose, and await the input of a checkuser/clerk. You've got an active RfC you can argue at, right? Avruch  T 04:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there isn't a case here and checkuser isn't for fishing. I think I should be free to express my disappointment in the abuse of process. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to disapprove of the process, but this isn't the venue in which to do it, IMHO. No one is trying to censor you. — BQZip01 —  talk 05:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * - insufficient evidence here, fishing expedition, and these users obviously have a history here. Adding TOR addresses here, BTW, is largely pointless - A l is o n  ❤ 06:32, 24 February 2008 (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.''