Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Edgerunner2005

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

Edgerunner2005 (second case)





 * Code letter: F / G


 * Supporting evidence:
 * User:SorsImmanis1 is engaged in the same attacks on me as the IPs 80.192.60.134 and 80.192.60.20 and is making the same edits as these IPs and the Edgerunner2005 account. User:SorsImmanis1 has made the same edits and demands as Edgerunner2005 and these IPs.  SorsImmanis1 appeared shortly after the original RFCU case was closed and made this post to my talk space.  Yesterday (May 7th 2008) this user amde the same edit to Feminism that these IPs and Edgerunner made  and then went on to Talk:Feminism with this post-- Cailil   talk 13:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Edgerunner2005 and SorsImmanis1 are ❌. No comment on the IPs unless you can show evidence of block evasion, 3RR evasion, etc.Thatcher 15:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry Thatcher I should have detailed this evidence of possible block evasion:User:80.192.60.20 blocked for 1 week on 19:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC) SorsImmanis's first edit 18:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)-- Cailil  talk 10:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm just not comfortable giving an answer here. It looks like the IP was blocked for a content dispute that was mislabeled as "vandalism."  Neither the IP nor SorsImmanis1 is Edgerunner2005, and I'm not comfortable that there is sufficient disruption on the part of SorsImmanis1 or the IP to warrant releasing the IP.  You could ask another checkuser for a second opinion. Thatcher 00:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I respect your decision not to disclose but this user was not blocked "for a content dispute that was mislabeled as "vandalism"" they did vandalize the project with this post, and even after being blocked they continued to behave disruptively with their attack post in my talk space. Not only this but these IPs had previously demonstrated the same behaviour at WP:RSN  and on my talk page.  These IP users made harassing edits and were povpushing, they also vandalized the project by adding nonsense to a to do list.  The SorsImmanis1 account began to do exactly the same things by harassing me and by povpushing.  3 days into a week long block they created an account and made that attack post to my talk-space.  They then waited until their account matured and thus by-passed semi-protection and then continued to perform the same edit as teh IPs.  In many ways I think this case has been damaged by the fact that User:Edgerunner2005 must be someone else's throw away account, but if RFCU can't info on disclose SorsImmanis1 yet, becuase of content issues we'll just have to sit tight and AGF that this user's behaviour will improve-- Cailil   talk 13:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Check no longer necessary-- Cailil  talk 17:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Edgerunner2005





 * Code letter: C / E / F / G


 * Supporting evidence:
 * Edgerunner2005
 * 80.192.60.20
 * 68.2.74.58

User:Edgerunner2005 has made the same edit a number of times to feminism pushing a pov unsupported by sources and doing so by misrepresenting cited sources. They have reverted everyone who corrects this povpush. This account's behaviour is exactly the same as the behaviour of User:68.2.74.58 and User:80.192.60.20. The Edgerunner2005 account may also be related to an account that made 4 edits in 2005 using the name Edgerunner-- Cailil  talk 15:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Update: 80.192.60.20 was blocked for a week last night (as a vandalism only account) hours later User:80.192.60.134 appeared and has reverted Feminism to User:80.192.60.20's preferred version


 * They have also launched personal attacks on me because I've reverted their vandalism-- Cailil  talk 11:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * How can you call this a personal attack? I've made valid claims regarding the reliability of this source and the NPOV that you are pushing as the worldwide consensus for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.60.134 (talk • contribs)


 * There is no opposing POV being represented on this page. You are classifying the corrections of the article as vandalism and requesting User:BrownHairedGirl ban editors to enforce this NPOV. E.g. the referenced section of |the report commisioned for the UN i.e. Section 28: Gender, Work Burden, and Time Allocation in United Nations Human Development Report 2004 clearly said the information was an estimate and you intended to portray this as a statement of fact). How do you justify the consensus reached in |this edit?  Is it a consensus because you wrote it?  The qualifications removed in that edit had rightly raised into question the reliability of the source. Also the citation, for that report is a broken link, forcing ppl to track it down seperately ( the full report can be found |here).

(talk) 13:05, 26 April 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.''
 * Except for the obvious fact that the 80.192 editors are probably the same person, the rest is . Thatcher 12:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)