Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/GooseCreek

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

GooseCreek







 * Code letter: G
 * Supporting evidence:

We appear to have a swarm of sockpuppets or meat puppets disrupting Talk:Waterboarding. There is an ongoing RfC at Talk:Waterboarding/Definition about the question of whether Waterboarding is torture or not. This is a high importance, high visibility political topic where there is a strong incentive for lobbying via Wikipedia.

The above editors are all either SPAs, or other accounts with low edit counts that have copied the identical formatting for their votes: ’’’Support.’’’ Please also check if any of the above match any banned users. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 16:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * - as IP editors have been directly involved in votestacking and disruption/personal attacks here, I'm including them per policy.




 * ❌ - the other IP addresses, and there are no underlying accounts


 * ❌ - -  A l is o n  ❤ 19:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Question - Why has User:PennState21 not been blocked for sockpuppetry? Also, Shibumi2 cannot be a sockpuppet of PennState21; it must be the other way around, since Shibumi2 was created in early 2007 and PennState21 in late 2007. Badagnani (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Because I am on it ;). -- lucasbfr  ho ho ho 19:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * tagged and blocked the puppets. Hardblocked the IP and the main account for 2 weeks, considering the main is here since January. -- lucasbfr  ho ho ho 19:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for butting in :) henrik  • talk  19:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You guys/gals are good! Badagnani (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It wasn't clear from earlier, but is ❌ to any of the others -  A l is o n  ❤ 19:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you sure Neutral Good is unrelated? It seems very suspicious that he was pushing so hard for Shibumi2 to become an administrator Chris Bainbridge (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that account is unrelated and this is the second checkuser request in as many weeks that s/he has survived - A l is o n  ❤ 19:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:209.221.240.193 has an established and demonstrated history of sockpuppetry related to articles along these political tones, which has lead to one arbitration hearing related to this, for User:DeanHinnen and User:BryanFromPalatine. Details at Requests for arbitration/Free Republic. These editors blocked here also (such as Shibumi2, the oldest) had also participated on the Free Republic article in the same time frame as banned user BryanFromPalatine/DeanHinnen, when he was socking. Would it be possible to check for accounts on participating with multiple accounts on this waterboarding discussion? The 209.221.240.193 has also played a role in the tainted discussions there. Lawrence Cohen 19:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: 209.221.240.193

moving conversation on the merits of the block and its length to the talk page. Please keep it there... -- lucasbfr  ho ho ho 23:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Update: Is this ban evasion? User talk:Lawrence Cohen? Is this the type of situation that normally ends in a range block? Lawrence Cohen  16:51, 31 December 2007 (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.''