Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kossack4Truth

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

Kossack4Truth


Kossack4Truth June 2 3RR:
 * Supporting evidence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:3RRNB#User:Kossack4Truth_reported_by_71.130.194.163_.28talk.29_.28Result:_48_hour_block_.29

Kossack4Truth May 20 3RR:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive73#User:Kossack4Truth_reported_by_User:Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters_.28Result:_blocked_24_hours.29

Accounts make identical edits on Barack Obama, and nearly exclusively on that page, generally as soon as one reaches 3RR limit. When one is blocked, the other takes up the edit war. Kossack4Truth was recently blocked (for second time) for 3RR on that page, at which time Fovean Author restored the material Kossack4Truth was 3RR'd for.

Kossack4Truth indicates on his/her user talk page that s/he is traveling today, and so allegedly unaffected by block. Traveling (if true) also makes it likely that s/he is using a different (temporary) IP address at that remote location. Traveling comment diff

WorkerBee74 is a new account added June 1, that also edits exclusively on the Barack Obama (talk) page, and that "argues" for the positions of blocked Kossack4Truth and Fovean Author, including stating the intended poll votes of those blocked accounts.

68.31.80.187, 70.9.72.38, 70.9.18.59, 75.85.92.198 have only made edits supporting "polls" on Talk:Barack Obama. Some other IP addresses all follow the same pattern of only having edits that are votes on polls on same article talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk • contribs) 02:49, 20 June 2008


 * The complaining editor here is Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. He has an extensive block history of his own, and is on the losing end of a consensus determination at Barack Obama. Like a couple of other editors on the losing end (Scjessey and Shem), he believes he can win the content dispute by delegitimizing editors who disagree with him. They're attempting to do this by making false accusations.


 * The request contains several accusations and claims, but only one diff: an announcement by K4T that he was on a business trip. Normally this request should be declined because Checkuser is not for fishing.


 * But in this case, I support the request. False accusations have been used by these three editors as a substitute for constructive dialogue. Once it's shown that the accusations are without merit, we can make some progress toward a resolution of the content dispute. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * - Checkuser, in general, is not to be used to "prove innocence"... if there are specific allegations of sockpuppetry supported by diffs, they should be looked into. If not, this case should be declined. I'll review this more closely to see if I can see the specific allegations, if any and then comment further. But remember that negative results do not prove anything. ++Lar: t/c 16:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It is that WorkerBee74 is related to 68.31.80.187,  70.9.72.38, and 70.9.18.59 but it could just be forgetting to log in rather than anything malicious... If WorkerBee wants to positively claim these IP's are theirs, they could be expunged, but if it's denied they are WorkerBee's they are OK to leave.  WorkerBee74 and Kossack4Truth are ❌ technically. My advice would be to block on behaviour if warranted... based on future behaviour only. Some of this is in the past and has been warned against. ++Lar: t/c 17:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Lar, if WorkerBee74 is the IP addresses you've identified, I don't think the use of the IP addresses is a simple case of accidentally forgetting to log in. If you look at this section in the Obama talk archives, WorkerBee74 and the IP addresses all !voted for the same option and thus inflated support for that option and continuing the discussion that still progresses on the page. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, if you look at the current discussion on Rezko, you'll find that WorkerBee74 and two one other IP address es from the same ISP are vote stacking and commenting again. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added 68.31.185.221 to the case, can we get it checked? Shem(talk) 21:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fits the pattern that Thatcher and I spotted, as a possibly related IP to WorkerBee74. However, contribs are from the 20th. I'd say deal with this problem another way. Dump the complex voting and go for reasoned debate and consensus. Maybe get a small body of uninvolved well respected folk to come in, weigh the arguments made (NOT count noses) and decide, having all preagreed to abide by the decision... ++Lar: t/c 21:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Per double-voting on Talk:Barack_Obama, that WorkerBee74 is logging out to edit.  That is his ISP, and other technical evidence is consistent with that theory.  He has never edited from those exact IPs, but he has a very dynamic ISP and has a different IP address almost every day. Thatcher 19:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse the possibility that WB was doing just that. The technical evidence easily supports that interpretation. ++Lar: t/c 21:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

My advice here would be "don't vote on things". Use consensus. A bunch of IPs commenting to just say "support" or to select an option should be discounted. Why are such elaborate polls being used anyway? It's just asking to be gamed... The particular section has a notation "(only contribution by editor is vote in polls on this page)" which strikes me as quite a good notation. On reviewing the page I absolutely will agree if you point out that "using consensus in this case is hard" but I still think it beats complex polls. But I feel your pain. :) ++Lar: t/c 21:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This editor and a bunch of IPs have also been quite vociferous in non-vote consensus discussions. It would seem to be an act of deliberate manipulation - assuming it is the same editor, he (1) stacks the vote, (2) argues that consensus is in his favor (technically seven to six), (3) threatens to edit the article based on declaring that he has won the vote, and (4) vociferously and uncivilly berates people for voicing concerns about sockpuppets, and for claiming that IP SPA editor votes should be discounted.  If we accept the conclusion that it is the same editor, that supports an indefinite block for sock puppetry and disruption of a very important article.  Wikidemo (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Kossack4Truth



 * Code letter: G


 * Supporting evidence: In the past the user user:Kossack4Truth has continued to edit the Barack Obama article against consensus. I am not filing this report because of that.  The reason I am filing this report is because I noticed user user:Fovean Author reverting the article back to the same edits as Kossack4Truth while ignoring the consensus on the talk page.  What caused me to raise flags is that when I reverted a Fovean Author edit back to the original consensus version, Kossack4Truth, not Fovean Author commented on my talk page.  Then Fovean Author again reverted the edit again.  Finally, Kossack4Truth reverted it again so that Fovean Author would not violate the 3RR rule and also knowing I could not revert and violate the rule.

I would like someone to check to make sure the two users are not the same person or if they are sockpuppets of some other user. I may just be seeing things, but I wanted to raise the flag anyway so that at the least it could be looked into. If you have any other questions please send them to me and I will quickly answer back. Also, I am still semi new to this so I may have made some mistakes filling this out. Thanks, Brothejr (talk) 13:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * ❌. Thatcher 00:24, 23 May 2008 (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.''