Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Graal unixmad

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

Unknown Puppeteer


All four were made in very quick succession (1 hour for all 4) consecutively - following one after another without interruption; successive - for apparent-only use of voting on an AfD. Contribs confirm this, as none have any other contribs bar the voting on AfD. Very similar use of sentence structure. Administrator raised alert to me. If they aren't sockpuppets, they are surely violating the policy about meatpuppets, and should incur an indef block.  Killfest2 — Daniel.Bryant  07:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: Checkuser does not need to be used if they are obvious sockpuppets. Look above to the policy section, number 9. Is there reasonable doubt if the votes are valid? You can tag them and get an administrator to block them. --Lord Deskana (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The last thing Wikimedia Foundation wants to is enrage GraalOnline by taking any negative action towards them/their users (like the 4 above) without solid proof. Danny has even said this explicitly to me, when he said: "but the situation is sensitive with these people" ("these" being GraalOnline players and staff) as well as when he said "but anything that will piss them off will make this blow up again" ("them" implying the same meaning as before). Without hard evidence, this would only cause another huge mess for WMF when they will be accused of being "Anti-Graal" etc. However, if you use checkuser and prove they are from the the same source, not even GraalOnline can dismiss that kind of hard evidence.  Killfest2 — Daniel.Bryant  11:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's just a note. I do not have the authority to perform checkuser requests, nor the authority to decline them. --Lord Deskana (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I thought you were able to perform the Clerk functions. Sorry again.  Killfest2 — Daniel.Bryant  13:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. But just to clarify, Clerks can't deny or perform checkusers either. --Lord Deskana (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I accidentally mistook you for one the B'crats have given the CU privelage to. Sorry again.  Killfest2 — Daniel.Bryant  13:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm honoured :-) --Lord Deskana (talk) 13:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

For the moment, per Deskana. This seems like run of the mill AfD puppetry and you don't need checkuser to break up that kind of thing. Mackensen (talk) 23:57, 1 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.''

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

Graal unixmad




Explanation of the request for CheckUser.  Killfest2|Daniel.Bryant  (Talk)  03:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Many who are associated (including in admin) found it suspicious that when a contraversial user was given a final warning for 3RR, another account picked up and continued the removal of information. The Mediation case can be found here. The IP who "replaced" Graal unixmad was Bingolice. This is an ongoing censorship case where a company, led by their owner (Graal unixmad) want to remove the criticism section.  Killfest2|Daniel.Bryant  (Talk)  03:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see much evidence posted here and I cannot find much by comparing the contribs. The user certainly has an interest in editing this page, and did revert once back to Graal's version, but thats about it. I don't see enough for a checkUser at this time.  Voice -of- All  03:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC) gay
 * The interesting part about it is unixmad edits up until approximately 14:03 (blanking), at which he recieves a final warning. Bingo then takes over, doing the exact same thing, a mere 10 minutes later, until he is warned, then they go and complain to the admins.  Killfest2|Daniel.Bryant  (Talk)  04:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it isn't an ongoing problem at the moment. I'm going to table this pending fresh developments. Mackensen (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Situation has flared up again with legal implications towards Wikipedia. Checking the user will add finality.  Killfest2|Daniel.Bryant  (Talk)  11:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

 Killfest2|Daniel.Bryant  (Talk)  is a poor choice to be making this kind of suggestion right now, which could be seen as abusive. He is also not qualified to gauge legal threats against the Foundation. Contact me instead if you have questions.--Brad Patrick 14:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have contacted you, yet you refuse to reply to my messages. Also, this CheckUser was made as an agreed-upon resolution to the mediation case. Still trying to undermine the mediation system? You're doing a very good job of it.  Killfest2|Daniel.Bryant  (Talk)  07:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Please provide specific diffs demonstrating alleged policy violations. Mackensen (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

If there is any need to run CheckUser in this affair, it will be done privately and in consultation with the Foundation's representatives. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:43, 29 July 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.''