Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Its Pytch.. Hon

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

Its Pytch.. Hon



 * Code letter: G
 * Supporting evidence:
 * Code letter: G
 * Supporting evidence:
 * Code letter: G
 * Supporting evidence:
 * Code letter: G
 * Supporting evidence:
 * Code letter: G
 * Supporting evidence:
 * Code letter: G
 * Supporting evidence:
 * Code letter: G
 * Supporting evidence:
 * Code letter: G
 * Supporting evidence:
 * Code letter: G
 * Supporting evidence:
 * Code letter: G
 * Supporting evidence:
 * Code letter: G
 * Supporting evidence:
 * Code letter: G
 * Supporting evidence:
 * Code letter: G
 * Supporting evidence:
 * Code letter: G
 * Supporting evidence:

Admitted as such here. Very similar editing patterns, edit summaries, and each one created virtually identical pages in different editor's userspace - here and here (which I've deleted since it was in my userspace). Both intent on recreating previously deleted material as witnessed here and here. The last one is worrying, potentially exposing a large number of accounts with similar editing styles... such as those now listed above...

User:Webb Traverse has now created this page which is remarkably similar to the two posted above...The Rambling Man (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This was created by another of the socks, User:Lew Basnight IV. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments

I think you are on to something. Can you get this sock puppetry confirmed by a Checkuser, and then block all but the main account? The Checkuser may be able to identify additional accounts not listed here. I have not checked yet, but has this user has been warned not to recreate deleted, non-notable articles, and not to edit with multiple accounts for the purpose of disruption or evading scrutiny? If so, and he has continued to do so, I think a community ban would be appropriate. If he hasn't been properly warned yet, he needs to be told that a ban is the likely outcome if he persists in this disruptive behavior. - Jehochman Talk 15:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand that it may be a logistical challenge to notify all the accounts. If Checkuser shows them to be the same person, I think that if any one account has been notified previously, or now, that is fair.  If the user has created a confusing situation for himself because he's operating so many accounts, in fairness, I think that's his problem, not ours.  - Jehochman  Talk 16:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool, good advice. I've told a number of the puppets that recreating the deleted material is inappropriate, but just to be sure I've added a final warning on (what I'm assuming is) the current puppeteer's page to desist.  We'll see what Alison comes up with and take appropriate action.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've warned every registered user on the list with Its Pytch.. Hon ~ - Jehochman  Talk 17:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this looks like a major headache. The last ten or so accounts are linked by Rafael Trelles, Plasda, and a veiled threat against The Rambling Man ("We believe..." in the edit summary). It's hard to know what's the story with the older editors from February 2007 and even earlier. I don't think there's much to gain from blocking accounts that are already inactive for more than six months. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Guys, as this has now moved into threats, etc, can you paste this over on WP:RFCU as a case and I'll see to it ASAP? Thanks - A l is o n  ❤ 22:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hope that does it. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)






 * - this is very preliminary but I can confirm the above. There are actually dozens more socks here but I need to put a lot of work in to get a definitive answer - A l is o n  ❤ 00:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked all the confirmed and the likely one. Leaving the case open. -- lucasbfr talk 10:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Since some of the accounts have been used for harassment and trolling, I have blocked the main account as well. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 14:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)




 * - quite a number of them
 * - quite a number of them


 * I think that's the lot now - A l is o n  ❤ 06:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is great guys... I like it... Yeah... High Commotion... Tight-end Research... Wow... So this is you then... Good... Now send me your resumes... with a picture of each of you and then I will decide who will be part of the company (Group for Happy (talk) 12:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC))


 * Accounts blocked. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Needless to say, I have also blocked . - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ - - also blocked    and the underlying IP -  A l is o n  ❤ 19:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You probably mean and, correct? ( doesn't exist, and  is not blocked.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct, sorry! I got the templates wrong while I was pasting - A l is o n  ❤ 18:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

blocked and tagged remainder. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 22:16, 8 December 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.''