Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Licinius

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

User:Licinius (again)
I suspect that Mr nice guy is a new sockpuppet of Licinius, who was blocked after being found to have made illegal and unethical use of other sockpuppets.(here) User:Mr nice guy is now pushing the same, eccentric POV as Licinius in edits to Football and in comments at Talk:Football. They have both worked on other pages also. Grant65 | Talk 07:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * From the looks of it, seems to be Licinius. I've blocked both IPs for six months each, as they were hosting a massive sock farm, and will contact the University of Wollongong about use of thier IPs to vandalize. Essjay  (  Talk  •  Connect  ) 02:50, 3 May 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.''

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

,, , , ,
Severe and longterm sockpuppetry at Talk:Football, now spilling over into trolling at Talk:Football (soccer), Talk:Rugby league, Talk:Rugby union, Talk:American football, Talk:Gaelic football and Talk:Canadian football.

User:Grant65 first raised these allegations ages ago, but didn't follow it through by posting a request on this page.

Evidence that the first four are the same person can be seen in their similar behaviour at Talk:Football, the similarity of user pages, and the fact that for a time they were all making the same mistake in the way they signed their posts. These socks have all voted in a poll at Talk:Football, and have been extremely abusive to Grant65, so this is a pretty serious matter.

Grant65 originally also accused J_is_me of being a sockpuppet of Licinius, I suspect incorrectly. Consequently, J_is_me vandalised Grant65's user pages numerous times, which eventually ended after many warnings with me blocking J_is_me indefinitely. J_is_me's last post was a threat to get me. User:Jimididit then magically appeared to troll across numerous related pages with the sole purpose of smearing me. I therefore claim that Jimididit is J_is_me's sock.

Snottygobble 07:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I did raise the matter here on March 12 but it was deleted, apparently by accident, yesterday. I stand by my original complaint and agree with Snottygobble's comments above. Grant65 | Talk 12:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying you have been any less abusive Grant? What has happenned here?--Licinius 06:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

As to J Is Me vandalising Grant65's page, as far as I have seen, he did no more than make an equally bad faith accusation. He did not do it on numerous occasions as far as I can see but troublemakers following the football debate logged in anonymously and did it most properly. There is absolutely no evidence that J Is Me logged in anonymously and it was a bad decision to ban him under such circumstances. --The man from OZ 11:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There is quite a bit of sockpuppetry going on here. I'm a bit short on time tonight, but I'll come back tomorrow, make a final report and shoot the socks. Ambi 08:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

As to Jimididit being J is Me 's sockpuppet for no other reason than questioning the decision of Snottygobble, Snottygobble thoroughly deserves it. He banned J Is Me without any evidence for bad faith accusation when Grant65 has made about a dozen bad faith accusations. --The man from OZ 11:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet and it was a bad faith accusation by Grant65. This is absurd. --The man from OZ 11:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Further more this whole process has not been outlined although it has been asked to be. I got into this project to help with local references in the Shire ad it seems there is now quite a disturbing bereaucracy that suffocates participation. --The man from OZ 11:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Finally moe than anything I hope this is investigated properly :), in my opinion Snottygobble's administrationship should be with held. Good Luck --The man from OZ 11:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I would further like to add that Snottygobble has deleted the entirely reasonable questions that I have asked him. I reverted them as I feel that this is extremely unfair. I post these messages not to troll but to give at least some personal defence to the comments left above. Although I feel the process should be outlined to those accused, I found this and the accusations above purely by chance when I was posting the original message on Snottygobble's talk page.--The man from OZ 12:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * ,, and appear likely to be the same person.
 * There is inconclusive evidence that and  may be related.
 * There is no evidence to suggest that these two groups of users are the same person.
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I have just found this page by incident when I was leaving message on Snottygobble's page. This is absurd I am not the sockpuppet of anybody and nobody is my sockpuppet. Is there some chance for self defense here? --Licinius 06:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I've chosen to admit that Jimididit is my sockpuppet. But Jimididit didn't vote in a poll and thus has not violated anything. NSWelshman 14:07, 28 March 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.''