Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hammersoft

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

Hammersoft



 * Code letter: G
 * Supporting evidence: 1 2 3 4
 * Supporting evidence: 1 2 3 4

This user has strongly alluded to and admitted that his account is an alternate account. While there are legitimate uses for them, I believe that Hammersoft is using his account to avoid scrutiny in his controversial (if legitimate) edits and perhaps even push an agenda. My concern stems from a previous discussion on his talk page, in which a user simply requested him to identify his account as an alternate account. Hammersoft overreacted and became defensive in his response, saying that he does not wish for his privacy to be violated, he's not a sockpuppet and that we all think that he's a sockpuppet of User:Betacommand and made numerous attempts to end the discussion right there and then, which was an unwarranted response given the request. I have no idea why he felt it necessary to mention Betacommand, as no one even got close to that line of discussion, so I would like it checked. Though I should also point out that Hammersoft always supports Betacommand (even frequently making comments to support him on his talk page) including a decision on WP:NFCC that only he and Betacommand agreed to (Which can be seen here). Also there is the possibilty that it is another account altogether which may be controversial for whatever reason, but I have no idea what that account is. I am hoping that this sort of thing can be checked as well, but otherwise just check Hammersoft and Betacommand.  .: Alex  :.  09:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I will notify Betacommand when this is listed. Keilana talk(recall) 15:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What a joke, I request a CU to end this bullshit. Oh and please add my alt account User:Betacommand2. Once this it is proven that we are not the same can someone care to cluestick User:.:Alex:. about making insults and failing to AGF. βcommand 15:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)`


 * This is a fishing expedition. I have specifically denied being a sockpuppet of Betacommand. Releasing any details of any result of this checkuser would be a serious breach of privacy. Alex self admits he has no idea what account this might be. He also displays no abusive behavior done by me. The request is submitted as Code Letter G, i.e. it doesn't fit any criteria. This is a blatant fishing expedition in an attempt to violate my privacy. I have exceptionally strong reasons for protecting my privacy because I am being stalked. Alex does not like the fact that Betacommand and I both work on fair use issues. That does not give him leave to use CU as a bludgeoning tool to get his way. Betacommand is routinely accused of having sockpuppets, and this has never been proven. Just recently ST47 was accused of being a sockpuppet of Betacommand (see Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive120). This never ends. People don't like the work that he's doing and so they attack him. Similarly, they don't like the work I'm doing so they attack me. That's not a reason to checkuser someone. But fine, just to prove the insanity of this accusation, do the checkuser for all I care. You can post the results that prove Betacommand and I are not the same person. But please, I want my privacy respected. Anything else from this is pure fishing expedition (which me being a sockpuppet of Betacommand is as well for that matter). --Hammersoft (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to show how absurd this is, I compiled a time comparison of edits by Betacommand and myself from January 2nd through today. I used and . I posted the results at User:Hammersoft/HammerBetaAccusation. AWB and obvious bot edits by Betacommand have been removed from his edits. I don't use AWB or perform bot edits, so none have been removed from mine. Were this to be possible and I were one and the same as Betacommand, I'd have to be logging out and logging in relentlessly under these two accounts. If we take cutoff at ten minutes for such logout/login flipflops, I would have had to have done this flip flop 39 times over the last 4 days. 39. Of course, Alex can say "But he's using two computers at the same time!" or "But he's using two different browsers at the same time!". Sure. But also note that on three different occasions during that time Betacommand and I logged edits at the same time (1/5/08 23:09, 1/5/08 23:05, 1/5/08 0:06). This would have to be an awfully elaborate ruse and attempt at deception.
 * I also note that the Checkuser Policy states "The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to any of Wikimedia projects." Since neither myself nor Betacommand have conducted vandalism, and since I've not voted on anything, the only claim Alex can make is that Betacommand and I are somehow damaging the project. Upholding our fair use policy is not damage to the project. That is why Alex is energized about identifying Betacommand as Hammersoft. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

so therefore barring any actual diffs introduced showing disruption, policy violation, ban evasion or SOMETHING other than someone's idle curiousity. Alex, you should not make this sort of request absent some actual reason for it. ++Lar: t/c 19:24, 6 January 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.''