Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hunter91

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

Hunter91




Hunter91 recently posted a on their talk page asking for "help" nominating himself for administratorship. Subsequently the above five users (excluding James Robinson) voiced their support for Hunter91. Reviewing their contributions, I noticed a distinct pattern of questionable edits to Unterseeboot 973 and wikistalking of that article's original author User:Hut 8.5.

Further investigations have led to the discovery of further connections with an earlier CheckUser case for Mechanismtongs.

User:Pak21 (talk • contribs) has compiled a list of all suspected sockpuppets that have been tied with the continued harassment of editors who have opposed the creation of articles or reverted edits related to the "Jedi Order" and Rome:Total War gaming clan. (see Articles for deletion/Jedi Order and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jedi Order: Online Gameing Clan). These sockpuppets also have harassed User:DarthBinky and share an interest in Hook, North Hampshire.

I've already blocked most of the listed sockpuppets for obvious cases of vandalism, but I would definitely like a confirmation of Hunter91 being the current sockpuppeteer (who remains unblocked) and a listing of any other sockpuppets we may have missed. --  Netsnipe  ►  13:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Add User:213.166.17.23 to that list, he impersonated Hut 8.5 and edited that article. --Rory096 13:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A further list of user has been posted by Hut 8.5 to my talk page. There is also who I missed on my first pass through this. --Pak21 15:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I am pretty certain that at least one of these accounts is using an AOL IP, as the vandalism by 195.93.21.38 to Hook, north Hampshire (a favourite page of some suspected sockpuppets) shows. --Hut 8.5 16:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that 195.93.21.34 could also be a sock, based on an AfD vote (which, if you see the history, is directly following three edits by Hunter91, and support the AfD in the same vein as Hunter91.   M  a  rtinp23  18:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Strangely, there is a comment by on the same AfD, whichj goes directly against, and insults Hunter91 - so I'm not sure whether he/she is a sock - checkuser should help to clear it up though -  M  a  rtinp23  18:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added Mechanismtongs to the list of users to Checkuser because he has just reappeared asking for an unblock. Hopeful his most recent edits might be able to settle the issue of whether he's the original sock puppeteer. --  Netsnipe  ►  20:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The evidence of sockpuppetry against User:James Robinson (talk • contribs) is in where he claims (a week after the AFD was closed) to have improved the deleted article Jedi Order: Online Gameing Clan despite not having edited that article under that account name.   Netsnipe  ►  04:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just added two more (very obvious) socks to the list --Pak21 07:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Jedi order master (talk • contribs) and User:Paki 21 (talk • contribs) have already been indef'ed as vandals. There's no need to have them checked. Only those protesting their innocence need to be confirmed. --  Netsnipe  ►  10:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a somewhat complicated case. Let me say from the outset that I believe we're dealing with at least three people, possibly more, who all know each other at school. Short of banning the school our hands are somewhat tied. There are four groups of sockpuppets here. Group 1 is composed of the following: Group 2 is composed of the following: Group 3 is composed of the following: Group 4 is composed of the following: The other accounts I can tie only to the school. This isn't to say they aren't sockpuppets; I simply can't prove it based on IP evidence. If you've got reason to believe so based on editing behavior then I'd call it a safe bet. Mackensen (talk) 14:57, 10 September 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.''