Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Karl Meier

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

Karl_Meier

 * Code letter:D (code B also applies)
 * Code letter:D (code B also applies)
 * Code letter:D (code B also applies)

I would like to re-activate this as last time it was not processed. (I have various reasons for this. including that that User:ProtectWomen is certainly a sock created recently and in the first edit uses National Socialist German Workers Party showing past experience in wikipedia...). The reason that this request qualifies code letter D is that both users have voted on the following Article For Deletion: ,.--Aminz 07:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a false claim. The request was processed and rejected because, like in this case, no useful evidence was presented. -- Karl Meier 21:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * All Request for checkusers are conjectures. It might be true or not. That's why we go through this process. --Aminz 23:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The user is also under probation: --Aminz 08:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, please see the previous CheckUser here as it doesn't appear in this page. --Aminz 07:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to request that Aminz provide better evidence than just the fact that we both commented in an single deletion debate. That Aminz and ALM both keep making these frivolous accusations against me and ProtectWomen without presenting anything that is anything that is just remotely similar to useful evidence in order to attack us and somehow makes us look suspicious, amount to harassment. If anything action is to be taken I suggest that the relations between these two editors is checked instead, in order to determine if there is actually two or just one person behind this harassment and smear campaign against me and ProtectWomen. I am tried of Aminz and ALM wasting me and ProtectWomen's time with rude and strong accusations, without having any real evidence to support these accusation. As mentioned, their attacks and accusations that is all made without any evidence amount to harassment. -- Karl Meier 15:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please stay civil Karl. You can file a request for checkuser for me and ALM if you would like as long as you do it in a civil manner. I wouldn't consider that "rude and strong accusations" or an "smear campaign".--Aminz 23:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please mind your own civility and end your harassment. As long as you have no evidence to support your accusations, you have no excuse to attack us here in an attempt to make us look somehow suspicious. -- Karl Meier 10:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems extremely unlikely that Karl Meier and ProtectWomen are the same user. I agree with Karl Meier's characterization of this RfCU, and its restoration, as harassment.Proabivouac 00:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I brought the case here because I thought it to be likely. That this is "extremely unlikely", is your view. And your conclusions are your own speculations. --Aminz 01:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what you might "think" as long you have no useful evidence to present to back up your and ALM's continued attempts to bring me and ProtectWomen into a bad light, in what is a quite obvious attempt to smear our names and work on Wikipedia. I could perhaps live with and laugh at ALM's first request here, but continued accusations without any evidence to back these accusation is nothing but harassment, and that is unacceptable. Especially on a very public community forum such as this. -- Karl Meier 10:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is only your speculation that it is my speculation, just as this RfCU is entirely speculative (in fact, more like wishful thinking,) as was the last one was which was rightly dismissed.
 * You've used RfCU for harassment in the past, and it seems you're determined to keep on doing this regardless of requests from other editors to desist from this impolite behavior. An outsider might conclude, rightly or wrongly, that you aim to subject your colleagues to personal distress in order to punish them for being on the wrong side of a content dispute.
 * I invite you again to desist from harassing Karl Meier, and to leave future requests for Checkuser to others with better track records and a less confrontational disposition. If you can find someone else who agrees with your supicions strongly enough to file it, this will reduce the appearance that you are misusing this page.Proabivouac 08:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "You've used RfCU for harassment in the past"- Diff? --Aminz 09:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Diff?" - I searched your contributions and found this one: this one  and now this one .  The only legitimate case you've brought so far has been for DavidYork71 (for which I commend you).  Otherwise, it looks more like three strikes and you're out.  Perhaps you should think twice before bringing another one of these. --ProtectWomen 20:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous. Of course these are two separate people. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Karl_Meier

 * Code letter:B
 * Code letter:B
 * Code letter:B

Both users edit on same articles. I yet have to find differences to see if they together had violated WP:3RR but even if they did not User:Karl_Meier is still under probation. ALM 19:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The closed case is assumed to be located at Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom - the diff provided was subpage of that page ~ Anthony  20:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * . No 3RR violation documented, no breach of Karl Meier's probation documented. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Requests for checkuser says that in case of B, I only have to indicate closed case link and I am done. I do not have to provide any other differences. For other case it says to provide differences. I have followed it because following it saves my time. Can someone please change that page? --- ALM 12:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Karl Meier



 * Commons:User:Igiveup


 * Code letter: N/A (B-ish but arbcom does not apply to commons), cross-wiki case, see notes

Notes:
 * Requests for arbitration /Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek and /Moby Dick
 * Karl Meier aka Stereotek aka possibly Igiveup
 * Davenbelle aka Moby Dick
 * Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Disputes
 * Obviously a person with en:wiki checkuser can't check commons so this needs to be a cooperative effort. I have pointed all four of the commons checkusers to here so as to keep the discussion in one place.
 * I have consulted a Stewart about the matter but he said he is not allowed to act on the matter.

Currently the only thing that ties Karl Meier (formerly known as Stereotek) to this incident in commons is one edit. The purpose of this checkuser request is to rule out the possibility that User:Igiveup may be an impostor of Karl Meier.

-- Cat out 16:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I can confirm talking with Cool Cat about this, and that policy won't let me do the check. Jon Harald Søby 16:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * , the Karl Meier account on Wikipedia is too old to check anyway. Dmcdevit·t 21:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh oh, same thing again... to old account. :) -- Cat out 22:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * , I'm consulting with other CheckUsers to see if any previous results exist before I determine whether this will be useful. [ælfəks] 01:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * whilst this is happening, I'll leave it in the "Outstanding requests" section. When you hear word either way (whether you can get some previous results), please post here so that this matter can be closed fully. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 10:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * for now. It seems obvious that commons:User:Igiveup is User:Karl Meier, and there do not appear to be grounds to check commons:User:Moby Dick at this time. [ælfəks] 04:23, 13 November 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.''