Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Davkal

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

Davkal (2008-03-06)



 * Code letter: F
 * Style and subject matter coincide with dedicated puppetmaster User:Davkal. Please also check for sleepers. Thanks - Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - does this fall under the remit of community-based ban or block evasion, per WP:RFCU? Additionally, is this not something of a fishing request? NB, I say this in the capacity of an editor, not a clerk. AGK (contact) 23:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * To answer your first question, it would be evasion of block/ban on Davkal (F). Re: fishing, Davkal's socks tend to waste an inordinate amount of time (see archived checkuser requests), so my bias is always to ask for a check if there's a suspicion. The evidence here is largely along the lines of "fits many criteria of a generic sock account and follows Davkal's general line of attack" - that is, certainly not strong enough for WP:SSP but perhaps strong enough to look for technical confirmation or its lack. I suppose it's up to the checkuser whether this particular hunch is grounds for looking. MastCell Talk 00:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * To answer your first question, it would be evasion of block/ban on Davkal (F). Re: fishing, Davkal's socks tend to waste an inordinate amount of time (see archived checkuser requests), so my bias is always to ask for a check if there's a suspicion. The evidence here is largely along the lines of "fits many criteria of a generic sock account and follows Davkal's general line of attack" - that is, certainly not strong enough for WP:SSP but perhaps strong enough to look for technical confirmation or its lack. I suppose it's up to the checkuser whether this particular hunch is grounds for looking. MastCell Talk 00:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * - accepting this case on familiarity with Davkal's modus operandi. See previous cases below - A l is o n  ❤ 05:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * - A l is o n  ❤ 05:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Davkal (2008-02-17)



 * - revealed at
 * - already blocked
 * Code letter: F
 * Per Suspected sock puppets/Davkal (2nd) it was recommended that a checkuser be performed. This is separate from the other request. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Suspected sock puppets/Davkal (2nd) it was recommended that a checkuser be performed. This is separate from the other request. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please review for second request. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

✅ - all of the above

- as an open proxy - A l is o n  ❤ 05:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * already blocked, but now tagged. Spebi 05:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Davkal



 * - revealed at
 * - already blocked
 * Code letter: F
 * Supporting evidence: A Davkal sockpuppet (AlexanderSaxton) has just been blocked. A new account user:QuicksilverNick has posted in the expert withdrawal discussion here taking up AS's point.  This is the sole post from this account.  A Davkal sock seems likely to me. Jay*Jay (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Suspected sock puppets/Davkal (2nd) it was recommended that a checkuser be performed. This is separate from the other request. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Supporting evidence: A Davkal sockpuppet (AlexanderSaxton) has just been blocked. A new account user:QuicksilverNick has posted in the expert withdrawal discussion here taking up AS's point.  This is the sole post from this account.  A Davkal sock seems likely to me. Jay*Jay (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Suspected sock puppets/Davkal (2nd) it was recommended that a checkuser be performed. This is separate from the other request. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops, just noticed the post is signed as Davkal, making this an easy case! The language in the post is also problematic (to say the least...) Jay*Jay (talk) 13:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * - unnecessary - A l is o n  ❤ 14:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please review for second request. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do not retroactively edit checkuser statements - A l is o n  ❤ 21:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Does this mean that someone will block this sock and add it to the Davkal list? Sorry, new to RfCU and unsure what happens. Jay*Jay (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop x nuvola with clock.svg User(s) blocked. - given the evidence and the self-admission, I've gone ahead and blocked that account - A l is o n  ❤ 18:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thannks. :) Jay*Jay (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * listed as declined, I guess there was no CU. -- lucasbfr  talk 10:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Davkal (2008-02-16)


Code letter: F (Block log)

New user appeared on User:Raymond arritt/Expert withdrawal with a longstanding grudge. Matches Davkal's POV, pattern, and approach. This one is quacking quite loudly, but I'd like to see if there's technical confirmation with Davkal or any of his other confirmed socks, as well as pick up any sleepers. MastCell Talk 04:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ - the following:




 * - A l is o n  ❤ 04:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * all confirmed accounts blocked and tagged. Spebi 06:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Check run on WP:ANI
merely noting the CU and the results --  lucasbfr  talk 12:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC):

✅ the puppetmaster is. Thatcher 03:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The only other active account is, also blocked. There's a few that might be sleepers but I'll watch them. Thatcher 04:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Davkal





 * Code letter: E

Davkal is currently blocked 24 hours for 3RR. During this block the account Baaderthanmeinhof did a revert several versions back to Davkal's last version. This is the only edit by that account, and the account was created hours after Davkal was issued a one week block (during which time he may to have done IP sockpupptry as appears in the report below - looks like he created a sock account then but decided to IP edit instead, and now has used that account for sock puppetry).

Reverts that got Davkal blocked:


 * 1st revert: 09:16, 13 March 2007 revert to 03:44, 13 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 07:54, 14 March 2007 revert to 19:16, 13 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 08:00, 14 March 2007 same revert as 2nd
 * 4th revert: 08:02, 14 March 2007 same as above
 * 5th revert: 08:35, 14 March 2007 partial revert to same version as above

Revert by Baaderthanmeinhof: 20:48, 14 March 2007

Minderbinder 19:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ Also:
 * --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Davkal


On September 10, during a bitter dispute between User:Davkal and the other editors at CSICOP, Davkal lost his cool (over a different article) so completely that I blocked him for one week. He reacted to the block with further disgustingness. Today an anon with plenty of previous vandalism warnings, 170.3.8.253, vandalized CSICOP in a rather elaborate manner consistent with Davkal's POV and his recent disgustingness. Mike Christie, who has been mediating the conflict, has told me that he thinks the circumstances suggestive enough to warrant a checkuser, with a view to a possible longer block for Davkal. (Incidentally I'd also appreciate advice on whether the IP can be blocked for longer than the present 24 hours.) Bishonen | talk 16:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC).

The IP is registered to the New York State Dept of Transportation. It is likely it is someone's desktop PC. (Although it could be a division pool.) I suspect blocking will affect very few users. Thatcher131 (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I've re-blocked the IP for two weeks. Bishonen | talk 16:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC).

I think we're done here. Mackensen (talk) 16:26, 12 September 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.''