Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kamosuke

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

Kamosuke




These editors, and these are only the ones currently active, consistently push a point of view at the expense of the quality and neutrality of the article. User:Nihonjoe, an administrator familiar with these sock puppets, has said it is "obvious" that these users are sock puppets or "likely meatpuppets" with the way "they work in concert to push one POV." 

Because of their ongoing serious pattern vandalism (POV pushing and continual evasion of the 3RR rule by working in concert), many Wikipedia articles, such as Tsushima Basin, East Sea, the Rusk documents, Syngman Rhee line, Norimitsu Onishi, Dokdo, Okinoshima, and Comfort women were protected and are still in that status. Evidence of their working in concert are available at each of those article's history page although they are probably too old to run a checkuser.

Discussions in talk pages with these users to try and resolve issues do not lead to any productive result. One reason may be the language barrier of the users. However, with User:Eirikr's help, a discussion in Japanese with Kamosuke went no where. . (Although this example is from the past.) Similar results can be seen in the Dokdo discussion page where discussion borders on the absurd.. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dokdo#opening_paragraph_.281.29 This is opening paragraph 1 in the discussion. It goes to opening paragraph 12.].

Since the pages where the editors usually push their point of view are still protected, these editors have moved on to Japan and the History of Japan and have started to consistently blank cited information relating to Korea, violating a neutral point of view. If this is viewed as a content dispute instead of outright vandlaism, at the very least it should fall under "(c)disruption of editing that can't be addressed any other way". If you look at the history of History of Japan, starting on July 25th, Mythologia and Kamosuke work to push their point of view and were both in violation of the 3RR. Starting on July 27th at 18:55, Mythologia reverts three times and then Celldea steps in so that Mythologia can circumvent the 3RR. Similar patterns can be observed in the history page for Japan (Such as on July 26th when Mythologia reverted twice and then Kamosuke took his/her place for three reverts and then Mythologia used his/her last revert which is followed by another pattern of abuse on the 27th and so on) where instead of actually discussing issues, information is blanked and deleted. If this doesn't fall under checkuser any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks. Tortfeasor 19:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Mythologia seems to be an obvious sock from the history pages. HaradaSanosuke blanked an opposing comment made by a user to Kamosuke (then mystriously restored it). The others both revert pages by removing the same material either using popups or often using a "revert vandalism" like summary. Questionfromjapan was blocked twice for 3RR and Kamosuke was blocked for 3RR.  Voice -of- All  23:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I want to ask a question to you. I think I have diffrent opinions in Japan, Kimi ga Yo, and other edits. Please read them. I wonder you think me a sock. Please tell that you think me whoes sock. Mythologia 04:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

✅ This is an extremely complicated case. It seems quite possible that there's substantial meatpuppetry going on in addition to out-and-out sockpuppetry. That being said, I'm limiting my comments to the latter. There are three groups of sockpuppets:


 * 1)  and
 * ,, and
 * 1)  and

I found nothing to tie to any of these accounts. Tag them as you like, I'm off for a drink. Mackensen (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The confirmed sockpuppet accounts have been blocked. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  15:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Further discussion moved to talk page. Thatcher131 (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: has posted a note on his Talk page. Since I can't fulfill his request for a double-check on the checkuser, will one of you please do so? Thanks! ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  21:55, 1 August 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.''