Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Justiceinwiki

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

Justiceinwiki



 * Code letter: G
 * Supporting evidence: are edits of this users:
 * Code letter: G
 * Supporting evidence: are edits of this users:
 * Code letter: G
 * Supporting evidence: are edits of this users:

user:Justiceinwiki is WP:SPA account which is having in his edits help of others WP:SPA accounts. User:Votec is on this list because he has been similar WP:SPA account which has started 1 great edit war. After edit war has ended he has stoped editing. Story of that article and this is very similar (nationalistic killings in Yugoslavia) --- Rjecina 16:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

... please do not ask us to look through the entire contribution history of 5 users, but instead, give us diffs of specific edits that you think show a pattern of abuse, and a pattern of behaviour that suggests these users are the same underlying person. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 03:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is ease to confirm that user:213.67.92.73 is sock of user:Justiceinwiki because in his last edit he has connected like user:213.67.92.73 and signed like Justiceinwiki.
 * Because it has passed to much time from edits of user:Votec I will ask only for check if user WebsterMasters is sock of user:Justiceinwiki and confirmation that user:213.67.92.73 is sock of this user. For this checks it is only needed to look edits in article Prebilovci. This is history of that article --- Rjecina 04:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You gave a code letter G (other reason but a check is believed warranted). Please supply specific diffs that show behaviour that warrants a check, thanks. I have actually performed the check and know the results. But please remember that at present, the use of socks is not prohibited (see WP:SOCK) ... what is prohibited is use of them to edit war, skew consensus or otherwise act against policy. You have not yet shown that is happening, please provide diffs showing repeated reverting (not just editing), or showing discussion on a talk page being skewed to show false consensus or some other policy violation. I am sorry to be a hard case but I'm not going to follow every revision in a page to see possible things. Also if there is a block warranted, it is good to point to specific things, it reduces later controversy. ++Lar: t/c 12:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Reason for check of Justiceinwiki is wikipedia rule that "sock puppets may not be used for the purpose of deception, distraction, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists". Second reason is using of multiple accounts in edit warring. Evidence about this acts of justiceinwiki socks are:
 * Today he has created sock user:Interneter 100 . This account has been used to support arguments of justiceinwiki on page of administrator which has been judge (until today) in edit war about article Prebilovci. If it is not problem I will like check of this "new" user:Interneter 100. Here is his edit where this sock is showing support for position of justiceinwiki
 * In edit war I my version has been reverted on 15:27, 9 November 2007 by user:Justiceinwiki . After my revert I have been reverted this time by user:213.67.92.73 on 18:04, 9 November 2007 . This is clearly against wiki rules ! --- Rjecina 20:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. This user seems to have an interest in Prebilovci, and the article has been protected twice due to edit wars where this user was a party. He hasn't broken WP:3RR as far as I can see, but WP:Edit war is now policy. A single user using multiple accounts to hide the true state of the article is problematic. Looking back, there seems to have been quite a few more accounts solely created to edit Prebilovci.



henrik • talk  20:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Results
Guys, please give the diffs for specific allegations if you possibly can. Second request. You did give some diffs, which is helpful. I don't know about the rest, they are stale: Block (if disruptive) and tag as appropriate. ++Lar: t/c 21:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ that the following IDs are strongly connected, almost certainly the same user:

All blocked and tagged as appropriate. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 22:53, 22 November 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.''