Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hobartimus

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

Hobartimus

 * Code letter: G - attempt to avoid scrutiny in edits
 * Code letter: G - attempt to avoid scrutiny in edits
 * Code letter: G - attempt to avoid scrutiny in edits
 * Code letter: G - attempt to avoid scrutiny in edits
 * Code letter: G - attempt to avoid scrutiny in edits


 * Supporting evidence: All 4 editors have been removing criticism from Talk:Hungary. The second account (Avvoltoio) had only this edit. It appears to be an attempt to get a one-up in the dispute from the two sides; frankly, it looks rather childish, but the avoidance of scrutiny for the purpose of edit warring is worrisome and against policy. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

In case the CheckUser accepts a code G in this case I'd like to amend the request on the exact same rationale as described above, code G, basicly this is a request to extend the above, and request for a check of The following throwaway account posted the original trolling on talk:Hungary,  ,  , what was then reposted in violation of WP:TALK, by others including Magog the Ogre. The original account seems to know full well that his edits were inflammatory as he completely abandoned the account since. It seems possible that the owner of the original throwaway troll account returned under a more established name to defend his comment. As a side note ,the original trolling intent of Claudiuionescu was fulfilled to the fullest with multiple threads discussing him and his post and blocking development of the Hungary article in the meantime. None of the time spent was on comments directed toward improvements on the article. As an added reason relating to "Magog the ogre" it is a relatively new account ,exists only since August but almost immediately after creation asked for rollback and behaves like an experienced user, displayed great knowledge of the inner workings of Wikipedia. If code G is not accepted in this case then CU should disregard the above. There was an IP also involved with the case but I didn't include it since personal information (relation to a known IP, known location) is usually not given out in code G cases. Hobartimus (talk) 10:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Claudiuionescu and Avvoltoio appear ❌ to any other editor mentioned here; otherwise, to check without some compelling evidence of abuse. This might be worth splitting into two cases, but I'll go either way on that. –  Luna Santin  (talk) 07:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note that there was a previous request to look at Hobartimus and some other editors, presented to me on my talk page, which I looked into. I didn't find any connection there and I concur with Luna that in general this ought to be ... because . And further I'd like to not see increases in the "A asks for a check on P, R and S, so R asks for a check on A, B and C" sort of cases, please. They smack of tit for tat. ++Lar: t/c 22:04, 7 October 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.''