Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lost Knob

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

Lost Knob


I have to do this as an anon, as User:Splash who at the direction of User:CFIF banned and accused me of being a sockpuppet of User:Spotteddogsdotorg which is being run by a nutter Yank. The reason for the indefinite ban? I nominated one of User:CFIF's articles for deletion again after a few barmy votes filled with sockpuppets. There may be other victims at. As with the other checkuser started by the CFIF/Splash duo, this should prove once and for all that I User:Lost Knob is free and clear of these patently false and slanderous allegations.


 * On the assumption you have enough sense not to request a checkuser if you expect it to match your IP, this will presumably find a lack of IP matching. However, you, Lost Knob, absolutely are a sockpuppet of someone, even on the outside chance you aren't the same user who's been hassling CFIF for ages. Noone, no matter how skilled, turns up in AfD on their 17th ish edit and, coincidentally turns up in all the RfCs that have been filed on CFIF (all since deleted) within hours of them being created, and whilst still a freshly minted editor. (Nor for that matter, does anyone manage to turn up in the RfC you filed on me today without anyone on Wikipedia being notified of its existence.) On that basis, at the very least, you've used multiple accounts to create false impressions and are not going to get me to unblock you by coming up with unrelated IPs. Equally, Borox and Reborox are so new, they are exceptionally unlikely to dive into filing adminstrative RfCs (Requests for comment/Splash, I located by chance today) on what, their third or fourth ? day of editing.
 * One other mistake you make, and I must stop giving you lessons, is that Mr. Scott Brown has not been blocked, nor associated with the account of Lost Knob directly. Whoops. In a similar vein, CFIF didn't 'report' Borox to me, I did that on my own initiative. Why would that user claim that CFIF had, and why would you make the same claim, if he hadn't? Too many accounts to keep all their biographies straight, perhaps.
 * Also, your use of British English is distinctly heavy and non-native.
 * IP match or no, you're a sock. -Splash - tk 00:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Lost Knob




User has nominated articles for deletion out of the blue, calling them "bloody", similar to what DB does

Also uses similar wording as DB, ,

Both have also made similar edits to The Sweeney, a British TV series. CFIF ☎ 21:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Then I guess all the millions of people who use the term bloody and use proper English spellings are all sockpuppets as well. I found all of the articles that I nominated for deletion using the Random article feature, as I find it fun to use it to see what comes up. It just happened that several came up that seemed worthy of getting rid of and was not "out of the blue". Please do not jump to conclusions or you will wind up looking like George W. Bush. Lost Knob 21:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Please point out where the significant, checkuesr worthy, abuse has occured. I've compared the contribs and can't find any.  Voice -of- All  20:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Another case where admins here of are absolutley no help whatsoever. The similiarities are obvious! --CFIF ☎ 14:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Patience, grasshopper. How about examples like this: (the page is deleted, but Admins can still read it). Both users sided against CFIF on a recent RFC, which, if proved they're the same, would be a violation of WP:SOCK. If proved, it would also mean L.K. was editing while D.B. was on a block, another violation. D.B.'s last seven contributions already show he's really probably not interested in building an encyclopedia; a check user would be of assistance because if proved, L.K. should not be editing now.  Firsfron of Ronchester  19:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, given that and the recent trolling by DB, there seems to be good evidence when added to the above. When scanning contributions, deleted edits don't show up, which makes it easier to miss things. Voice -of- All  02:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I understand completely, VoA. I hope that the checkuser results come back negative, but there do seem to be some irregularities. I'd like something definitive before anyone acts further on the evidence. -- Firsfron of Ronchester 02:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

❌ Mackensen (talk) 13:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the check. It's a bit of a relief. :) Firsfron of Ronchester  16:07, 28 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.''