Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Green108

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

Green108





 * Code letter: G

use of sockpuppets to prevail over established consensus in a content dispute

Lwachowski appeared as a single purpose account and immediately started editing the BKWSU and related articles disruptively and trolling users talk pages. Similarities with Green108 are shown below.


 * 1) A previous sock of Green108, Shortskirtlonglegs questioned the "G.V. Mody Rural Health Care Centre & Eye Hospital," statement in the article, including concerning how it was funded. Lwachowski raises the question in almost exactly the same way.
 * 2) Lwachowski also supports Green108 by defending a fair-use challenge by claiming that 1702 × 2379 pixels is not high resolution using a BS argument. A similar approach was taken by Green108. This POV has also been supported by Faithinhumanity. It is strange how all three users seemed to know that the scanner used was set to 72 dpi. Lwachowski also puts forward the same argument as Green108 that the pictures are challenged because of some kind of BKWSU cover-up of embarrassing information. Also, Lwachowski re-introduces the images after IPSOS removes them requesting a fair-use review. It would seem Lwachowski is representing Green108's interests quite strongly here.
 * 3) Lwachowski and Green108 both introduce similar types of bias into the article. From Lwachowski   (esp compare this). From Green108 (with this, see end of diff).
 * 4) Green108, Faithinhumanty and Lwachowski all keep re-inserting sections of the article that were removed with consensus of the collaborating editors.
 * 5) Lwachowski and Green108 express identical POV, using almost exactly the same words, on the article talk page, such as "i am emphasising is that channelling and mediumship ARE utterly central to the Bkwsu", compared to, "Mediumship and channelling (both) are utter central and defining of this religion".
 * 6) Sometimes Green108 edits logged out, on this occasion as . It is possible that this edit was made by Lwachowski whilst logged out as  immediately after this edit. According to Maxmind, both IPs are in London but Green108's is using Claranet ISP and the possible IP of Lwachowski is using Telewest Broadband. Green108 has not posted since Lwachowski became active. If both the same user then this may be due to an ISP switch although this will be difficult to confirm unless Green108 posts again.

Bksimonb 17:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * . --Deskana (apples) 19:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Green108




Arbitration case. Green108 is continuing editing in a style very similar to banned user 195.82.106.244. I was recommended by WikiLeon to report it here after I reported the case on the Abitration Enforcement board. I would be surprised if this turns out positive since the banned user is always careful to cover his tracks and has previously admitted that he uses public IP locations (e.g. internet cafes) to post from after being banned. This is more likely to be a case of meatpuppetry. Bksimonb 12:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Code letter: B
 * Neither sockpuppetry nor meatpuppetry, I believe, because Green108 started contributing long before 195.82.106.244 was banned and thus does not clearly fit the definition of meatpuppet that states "Some users begin editing on Wikipedia because another user has recruited them to push a certain agenda". Also the style strikes me as different. Andries 18:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If Green108 was a sockpuppet or meatpuppet then this could already have been discovered at Requests_for_arbitration/Brahma_Kumaris because Green108 was already active by then and a party in the case. Based on this I think that a request for clarification or a second arbcom case or a user RFC would be more appropriate. In this I disagree with user:WikiLeonAndries 19:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * IP addresses are dynamic, so many other users may have used that, including the person in question. As the RFCU page states, checkusers in regards to arbcom hearings are given higher priority, as such I think it would have been more appropriate. If a user RfC is initiated, the checkuser result may be used as evidence in that particular case. -- w L &lt;speak&middot;check&gt; 05:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It's unclear whether Green108 is 195.8.106.244, but it's that Bkangel and Shortskirtlonglegs are Green108's sockpuppets. Mackensen (talk) 23:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That's an interesting and useful result. Bksimonb 19:26, 2 August 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.''