Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Editingoprah

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

Editingoprah




I noticed that after I warned Editingoprah about 3rr violations regarding edits he/she saw as "negative POV" on Oprah Winfrey, Editingoprah stopped the reverts, but two other users, using nearly the same wording, reverted it. Timelist has been involved in 3rr violations as part of Black People, tying this case to the previous case shown below: Kobrakid and co. Could be even further evidence of puppetry of the meat- and/or sock variety. David Fuchs 22:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Timelist and I are friends and classmates and frequently post in the same article. We freely admit this, and a checkuser should confirm it. Some of the others may also be part of my black studies class, as our professor told us all to check out all the great black articles on wikipedia, but I can't confirm this. Timelist I can confirm as we are friends and frequently post from the same building. In the interest of full disclosure, I've added this to our user pages. I have suspected that Kobrakid is part of my black studies class but I can't say for sure. Editingoprah 23:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * is required, in the form of diffs. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 23:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

See my user page for explanation. People who ahve nothing to hide, hide nothing. Editingoprah 23:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Righto, diffs. Here's the differences between the article in question, whether or not I was in error for the content is kind of pointless at this point now, so I'm not going to touch that page alone with a barge stick if there are people like that around... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oprah_Winfrey&diff=91182407&oldid=91161959

In addition, a comparison of edit summaries... 2nd Revert: Editingoprah:Wikipedia is not a forum for you to promote web pages. Ngeative infor must be very well sourced accoring to wikipedias living person biography policy. Anyone can create a web page. (then i added more sources, pointed out the 3rr rule, moved and deleted info I realized was redundant as he pointed out and sourced it earlier in the page... added even -more- sources in rv.. 3rd Revert: Timelist:revert to last version by Editingoprah, citing self-published web opages and student articles are not reliable sources for inflamatory content, book club stuff already discussed in article (after I added more citations, accusing me of putting up my own web pages, et al...) 4th Revert: Liketoread:revert to last version by Timelist. Poorly sourced negative POV is unacceptable in living biographies, please don't advertise your web pages.

Basically all I can claim is similarities. If it makes any relevant difference, as Eo said above, he "clarified it", by deleting sock-puppet warning on Timelist's page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Timelist&diff=prev&oldid=91259928. Liketoread has also blanked out the template. Seeing as theoretically Liketoread would have no idea why I put up the warning, you think I would have heard a peep from him... Both Editingoprah and Timelist have blanked their talk pages several times, and they have violated the 3rr rule possibly on several occasions. They have also gotten in trouble for removing cited information before ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Editingoprah&diff=prev&oldid=88746341 ). Both Timelist and Editingoprah have apparently reverted edits in particular made by User:Strothra. And, to top off what else I found, they've been vandalizing pages... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asian_%28people%29&diff=prev&oldid=75841678.


 * I NEVER VANDALIZED ANYTHING! That was an honest mistake on the Asian people article. I thought I was reverting a vandal but was accidentally reverted someone who was reverting a vandal.  Timelist 00:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, due to the nature of Wikipedia all I can do is look at the facts and draw a pattern. It's certainly plausible that Timelist and Editingoprah could be in the same class, but even if they are different people it seems apparent they are helping enforce each other's edits. That enough diffs? David Fuchs 00:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If there is some rule we are violating we would be more than happy to stop. You are just trying to divert attention from the fact that you added libelous information based unreliable sources (anaonymous web pages which we suspect you run) to the Oprah article. That's a violation of wikipedia biography of living persons. Timelist 00:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And I am more than willing to admit that I should have posted more reliable sources to begin with, I just posted it and had to do other things. ...But considering you're not in school and you can't have watchlisted this page, how did you know I replied? ;) David Fuchs 00:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Editingoprah told me. We're in the same room right now. Timelist 00:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ✅ that Editingoprah and Timelist are on the same IPs, for what it's worth, but you'll probably have to take the discussion to ANI since they claim to be classmates. Dmcdevit·t 07:17, 2 December 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.''

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

Editingoprah




Infected case at. It needs to be cleared if sockpuppets are being used to make it difficult or impossible to resove the dispute, and to evade 3RR violations. It has been brought forth that Editingoprah is using socks. It will make things easier if the issue of socks can be cleared as the discussion is infected enough as it is. Ezeu 19:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please provide evidence of alleged policy violations. Mackensen (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Possible (several) 3RR violations by one or more of the listed accounts (if it turns out the accounts are sockpuppets) are listed here. The main concern is that they are creating a disruptive atmosphere. I couldnt possibly claim evidence that Editingoprah is a sockmaster (which I strongly suspect he is). That is why I am requesting a checkuser. If these accounts are not sock-accounts, then their names will be cleared. --Ezeu 14:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It's vaguely possible. All three accounts edit from the same geographical area, but from different ISPs. Could be meatpuppetry. Mackensen (talk) 21:55, 14 August 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.''