Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/John Smith's

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

John Smith's





 * Code letter: E

There is an extremely length edit war going on at Mao: The Unknown Story, and it was suggested by User:Giovanni33 that Xmas1973 is a sockpuppet of John Smith's. If this is true, then he will have violated 3RR across the two accounts. I have noticed myself that they do share a similar writing style, but this is easily dismissed as mere coincidence if the sockpuppet check turns up negative. --Deskana (fry that thing!)  14:39, That IP 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * per E, could you provide 4 diffs showing the 3RR violation? -- lucasbfr talk 14:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 09:10, 11 April 2007 - JS
 * 16:05, 11 April 2007 - JS
 * 16:10, 11 April 2007 - JS
 * 16:34, 11 April 2007 - Xmas
 * 18:15, 11 April 2007 - Xmas
 * 22:45, 11 April 2007 - Xmas
 * 23:28, 11 April 2007 - 62.31.146.25
 * 23:37, 11 April 2007 - 62.31.146.25
 * 23:40, 11 April 2007 - 62.31.146.25
 * Each had three reverts, which is rather convenient. Also of note is that as soon as Giovanni had done three reverts, another user, User:VietFire reverted to his version and it was that user's first edit. It's entirely possible both users are using sockpuppets, and Giovanni has used them before (that's a long time in the past though, and no reason to accuse him). I would appreciate and  being checked against each other as well. --Deskana  (fry that thing!)  15:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * and are listed together on a recent checkuser case you can find at Requests for checkuser/Case/Giovanni33. -- lucasbfr talk  15:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I didn't see that. --Deskana (fry that thing!)  15:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree we should all be checked with circumstances look suspicious as this. I'm quite against any of our editors using puppets. I request a check of this IP: against  and  .  The IP shows as in the UK, which I know John Smith is from. If they are connected this would be a 3RR vio. The IP edits started after the other two ran out of 3 reverts and was a new user reverting back to their version. Thanks.Giovanni33 17:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You've just echoed exactly what I said above. --Deskana (fry that thing!)  17:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I just saw that. Sorry for the repetition, and thanks for asking for this check.Giovanni33 17:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have nothing to do with either John Smith's or that IP address, be it as user accounts or aliases. Xmas1973 19:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And again, on looking below, I have nothing to do with that IP address. I am nobody's sock puppet, and I am 100% confident that the results of any test you care to undertake will vindicate that statement. This is my only account. My only masters are the Wikipedia guidelines and my own sense of fair play. Xmas1973 19:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * IPs removed, because CUs won't comment on them. Also, you need to provide four diffs per user. mrholybrain 's talk 00:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I fail to see why I need to provide four. If the users are the same, then they have violated 3RR, that is clear. I've never gone through all this trouble to get a checkuser in the past... --Deskana (fry that thing!)  00:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know why IP's are not checked against the user names. I'd say that is important and aren't user names checked by their IP anyway? So that makes no sense to me. If the user used one account to revert 4 times, what would be the point to cheat and use a socket puppet? They would be blocked already! So both these points make no sense to me. I also see that you are NOT an admin, either. I'm going to restore the valid IP address given that needs to be checked against the other users.Giovanni33 02:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The more fuss you kick up about a non-existent overlap in our IPs the more you draw attention to your own nefarious sock puppetry, past, present and no doubt future! Xmas1973 08:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no present or future puppetry on my part. Stop making false accusations.Giovanni33 18:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * IPs cannot be listed because the privacy policy prevents CUs from talking about associations between users and IPs. mrholybrain 's talk 10:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You're sure about that? Not only is that that contrary to my experience of checkuser in general (and I've filed quite a lot of requests), you can see that the request below pertaining to an IP has been answered. In addition, that's what the template is for, and the template you have to fill in when writing your request says you should include associated IPs. I think you're mistaken. --Deskana  (fry that thing!)  13:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * mrholybrain, WP's privacy policy does not prevent IPs to be listed on CU requests. In fact, IPs are frequently listed so that admins may confirm that the IPs are not related to a user account.  I don't think admins ever confirm an IP address related to a user account, but they do confirm that an IP is not related to a user account - that does not violate WP's privacy policy.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 13:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh my God, can someone please just do the check and get it over with? This is farce on a grand scale - do the check or cancel it! John Smith&#39;s 13:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ❌. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Did this include checking against the IP address, above? I noticed someone removed it again.Giovanni33 19:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Surprise, surprise - no match! Now let's get cracking on the real substance. Xmas1973 21:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Bangs head against wall* Why don't you all do something constructive now this is over and done with, rather than arguing on this page (and that is not what its for)? --Deskana (fry that thing!)  21:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

John Smith's





 * Code letter: E

First User:John Smith's reverted three times, taking out a particular section that was added earlier by another editor: Then he declared he'll engage in a revert war. And then an IP-editor appeared, taking out the same section that John Smith's kept taking out. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1st revert
 * 2nd revert
 * 3rd revert


 * taking the liberty to change the code letter to E, it seems to be a 3RR violation. -- lucasbfr talk 19:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ❌. No IP relationship detected. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:01, 5 April 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.''