Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Goth and Throbb99

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

Goth and Throbb99





 * Code letter: G

This user has been the subject of a number of WP:AN/I reports. The user basically does things their own way, with little reguard for whether they are actually doing things right or wrong. The kicker is that the user does zero communication with any other user. Not on their own talk page in response to various complaints and requests to respond, not on any article talk pages, none. After one of the AN/I reports I blocked the original account indefinitely, stressing that the block could be undone by any admin if/when the user simply began to communicate with the various users who had issues with his/her edits. Instead, a new account popped up, then another. After the third account I did not immediately see a 4th, but today I found it, created right after the third was blocked. And, across all four accounts, the user has still not once that I see communicated with any other editor, though with this last one he/she is finally using edit summaries, which is a minor improvement. But not enough. The user does useful work, but continues to get complaints on their talk page.

The 4th account is blocked. I expect a 5th to pop up in the next few days whether I spot it then or not. At this point I see two options. 1) I continue to play wack-a-mole with the socks as I find them. Or 2) this check-user finds the underlying IP and cuts it off. In either case, if the user would just communicate and deal with the problems that his/her edits cause at times, I would lay off of him/her. And that's really the goal of the blocks, to get the user to start communicating. Anyway, this would be a code A, as it is a request for blocking of an underlying IP, rather than a linking of the accounts, but since it's not vandalism or attack related it's not technically a code A. Thus the code G.  TexasAndroid (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅, also . Unfortunately an IP block or targeted range block is not practical in this case. Thatcher 03:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh well. Whack-a-mole it is then. - TexasAndroid (talk) 04:11, 16 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.''