Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/M.V.E.i.

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

M.V.E.i.



 * Code letter: F


 * Supporting evidence: Please see the archived checkuser cases for typical behaviour of who has been blocked repeatedly and banned by the community after repeated block evasion.  See Suspected sock puppets/M.V.E.i. (3rd) for declaration of ban.


 * See contribs for evidence of similar ex-Soviet/sports/rock music patterns
 * Characteristic spelling errors: "shurely" ,
 * Frivolous accusations of POV pushing in disputes about ethnicity
 * Russian "blood"
 * Many more examples if you need them. Please ask, and I'll list them.


 * Please could we filter out any other dormant socks or static IPs? Thanks, Papa November (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

✅. User of many A-classes. Hard to tell sleeper accounts, though a few are vaguely suspect.  Aar on Sc hulz  09:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Already blocked and tagged. Tiptoety talk 19:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

M.V.E.i.



 * Code letter: F


 * Supporting evidence: Please see the archived checkuser cases for typical behaviour of who has been blocked repeatedly and banned by the community after repeated block evasion.  See Suspected sock puppets/M.V.E.i. (3rd) for declaration of ban.


 * Edits to Talk:Russians (favourite topic), with characteristic spelling/grammatical errors. "shure"
 * Edits to Talk:Fistfight, resuming where known sockpuppet User:Kostan1 left off.
 * Ownership of articles, flippant accusations of edit warring
 * Attempts to force opinion, characteristic lower-case personal pronoun "i"
 * IP addresses trace to same geo location as known sock IPs
 * There's plenty more if you need it, but I'm pretty confident. Please could you try to weed out any more socks? Thanks Papa November (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ the following are :

IPs listed for this case ✅ as. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

M.V.E.i.



 * Code letter: F


 * Supporting evidence: Please see the archived checkuser case for typical behaviour of who has been blocked repeatedly and banned by the community after repeated block evasion.  See Suspected sock puppets/M.V.E.i. (3rd) for declaration of ban.


 * Same ISP and similar IP address to confirmed socks.
 * Edits to Talk:Russians (favourite topic), with characteristic grammatical errors.

Please can we have some range blocks if the range is quiet? Papa November (talk) 09:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

With regard to this particular address, -- this is very obviously the same user. I'm afraid the rangeblock is impossible -- the addresses come from a /13 range (79.176.0.0-79.183.255.255), which is well over half a million IPs and would result in enormous collateral damage. Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * IP blocked for three months. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

M.V.E.i.



 * Code letter: F


 * Supporting evidence: Please see the archived checkuser case for typical behaviour of who has been blocked repeatedly and banned by the community after repeated block evasion.  See Suspected sock puppets/M.V.E.i. (3rd) for declaration of ban.


 * Same ISP/geographic location as confirmed sock
 * Same ex-Soviet/sports/music editing patterns (see contribs for each IP)
 * Flippant accusations of vandalism in summary during content disputes: ,
 * Characteristic grammatical/spelling errors:, ,
 * Threats:
 * Incivility:
 * Threats of edit warring: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_automobile&diff=prev&oldid=228011187

There's more evidence in the contribs if you need it. Papa November (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅. Jayjg (talk) 03:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * IP's blocked for two weeks. Tiptoety  talk 05:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

M.V.E.i.



 * Code letter: F


 * Supporting evidence: Please see the archived checkuser case for typical behaviour of who has been blocked repeatedly and banned by the community after repeated block evasion.  See Suspected sock puppets/M.V.E.i. (3rd) for declaration of ban.


 * See Special:Contributions/82.81.161.108 and Special:Contributions/Forward_Belarus: Strong correlation with ex-Soviet states/Sports/music editing.
 * SHOUTING in edit summaries, spelling errors
 * Flippant accusations of vandalism, spelling errors
 * editing same article, using same distinctive, unusual errors: lower case 'i', "shure", "hasn't -> havent", extensively edited by.
 * Editing the Userpage of a blocked sockpuppet of User:M.V.E.i.
 * Both Afro-Russian and Forward Belarus reverting edits at Ukrainization on 2008-07-12 (same day Afro-Russian stopped editing, and Forward Belarus started)
 * repeated use of lower case 'i'


 * Chronology
 * 2008-07-07: blocked as suspected sockpuppet of User:M.V.E.i.
 * 2008-07-10: created
 * 2008-07-12, 11:15: created
 * 2008-07-12, 11:34: Last edit by Afro-Russian
 * 2008-07-21: editing begins

The contributions for each of the editors are full of examples if you need more. Can we do anything more permanent to fix this? Papa November (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Opinions
 * I really dont get November's obsession on me. I really wanted, a few times, to start from scratch. What did i do wrong?? Someone made a mistake in an article about i music festival? i fixed it. I want to start from scratch, what's the problem? There's nothing you can do because when i get blocked i simply go to one of my friends in the neighberhood. I could forever stop writing here, but please explaine me what i asked so much and was ignored: I understand once i did stupid rude mistakes. But now i really have improved. So why not giving another chence? Why do administrators have such a beurocratic obsession to block someone without even taking as a factor if he changed, and what have he done lately? What's the case?! Forward Belarus (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I dont mind an admin to adopt me, or whatever it is called, i dont mind 10 admins adding me to their watch-list to see i really have changed, but whats the point blocking someone who really wants to contribute and comes for it? Why cant i start from scratch? It's really not fair. Forward Belarus (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * By all means, you can appeal a block. However, simply ignoring the community's decision is impolite.  There's some very good advice for how to properly request unblocking here and here. Papa November (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I sent letters to arbidation, or what ever this is calles, comitte. Emails. No one answered. If you and more administrators could come to my talk page here and talk to me that i would offcaurse like. You could ask me whatever you like, put your conditions, and i will agree to them all. How could it be a community decision if i recived Emails from people saying i shouldnt have been blocked and if i need help in the checkuser? That means that some people understood that the blockings got to far. Or read this. This user, Maria-Yulia, always had opinions contrasting mine. I'm a Russian patriot, she supports the Orange revolution in Ukraine. And even she haven't belived i'm M.V.E.i. That shows i really have changed. Forward Belarus (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Guys, the point is like this. I dont mind to leave wikipedia forever. Never to create account, articles or edit here. Less work for me, less time wasted. But i will do this after explained one thing:

Why cant i start from scratch? I really have improved and i think Papa November to noticed it. Why cant i start from scratch? After reciving the answer here, i forever leave Wikipedia. I'm simply to tired starting all over and then getting blocked. My writing style is to obvious, and i'm to buisy with University studies. Forward Belarus (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it is true that I received your e-mail where you asked for some help a month ago. You have asked for a clean come back while acknowledging what you've done wrong. I appreciate your sincerity. But you haven't stopped sockpuppeting since then. You have been here long enough to understand that the sock game is a bad game. It is true that Moreschi blocked you for a year but he left the door open in case you'd "come back with sanity refreshed." But instead of showing patience you went sockpuppeting non-stop. It is also true that you seem dedicated to the project but you know there are rules around here. The thing is that you were blocked for a reason. Then you got your block extended for another reason. And you are still violating policies. If you need a fresh come back then you need to stop sockpuppeting first (no excuse) before asking for anything. Take a short break of a few weeks and get back to me or to the blocking admin to re-discuss the issue. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  08:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, i will do it. The thnig is sometimes i can not enter Wikipedia for month. It gets hard when i see something needed to be added or edited, then i get this bug if i wont do it nobody will do it. Some might say it's good to have such etnhusiasts on Wikipedia (esspecialy if they learn to behave, which i work on), but it's result is not only many edits but also many accounts. The complete plan was not to get caught and stay out of troubles. With the Log in, log out, account it worked even with those who dont agree with me and i got along with them. Anyway, i will do what you asked. Forward Belarus (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "With the Log in, log out, account it worked even with those who dont agree with me and i got along with them". Yeah right. I'm sorry, but no way does this sock-puppeting National Bolshevik troll get to edit Wikipedia again. --Folantin (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your not to decide. I've got the right for free thinking and to belive in the political ideology i want. You had a strong case against you for such behaviour, your the last to speak. And by the way, Papa November who complained on me, can witness some not good things on you. I will eventualy get my second chance because i changed my behaviour, you're on your way down with your to high self opinion. Forward Belarus (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Folantin is right in this and you may have missed part of my comment. I won't agree with calling someone a troll though; it is not helpful at all.
 * You were blocked for a reason. You seem to be still focusing on the warring aspect of the issue though you confess that you have been correcting that. We won't obviously let someone get back and repeat the same -- which led to the original block. I hope you understand that sockpuppetry is never the cause of an issue; it is the original attitude prior to sockpuppeting instead. You wouldn't have been blocked; you wouldn't have been abusing sockpuppetry if it was not because of your impatience and editing behaviour pattern which deemed unacceptable, even to your own standards.
 * So please, stop editing as I suggested and cool it down. If not, you'll have tiny if not 0 chances to get back editing. Don't use arguments such as "It gets hard when", "The complete plan was". If it gets hard, get back for a while. And of course, plans should be transparent unless they are bad plans. I suggest you refer the blocking admin to this discussion; he may have something to add. You may probably ask him to block your FB account and any other possible operating socks. You then take your break and come back later on to see if we can move forward. --  FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  03:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) log in, log out engaged in the following discussion on my talk page recently connected with his appearance at WP:AN/I. From it, it is clear that he did not accept WP:V and WP:RS, by rejecting the published work of Prof Johanna Nichols of UC Berkeley as a reliable source. The way he argued there suggests that if he were allowed to return to wikipedia he would continue to be disruptive and wear down good faith neutral editors. His arguments in dismissing Prof Nichols were completely unreasonable. Please take a look. Mathsci (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. M.V.E.i. gets unblocked over my dead body. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 08:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Another IP address
 * started editing 2008-07-22, one day after this case started.
 * Contribs show the same ex-Soviet & sports editing patterns
 * Distinctive spelling/grammatical errors in this edit summary
 * I have blocked the IP for a week, as I think it's pretty clear-cut Papa November (talk) 10:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- for all of the abovementioned accounts. Plus, . seems to be a sleeping account.
 * The above IP started editing just hours after I first commented above. That shows that M.V.E.i has lost all his cards. There is another different IP range. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  02:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

M.V.E.i.

 * (the master)
 * (the new account)
 * (most recently blocked sockpuppet)
 * (IP likely used by this person)
 * (IP likely used by this person)


 * Code letter: F


 * Supporting evidence: This information was left at my talk page. It makes the case quite well, so I am merely copy-pasting it from there.  The evidence is presented by User:Papa November.  I am forwarding it here for checkuser.  The new user User:SharpNail was created at 14:55 today, just two hours after his latest sockpuppet User:MaIl89 had his unblock refused.  The new user has so far:
 * Referred to User:Protagon on their talk page, who was the first person to bring a sockpuppetry case against User:M.V.E.i..
 * Admitted that they are a sockpuppet account, albeit with claims that they will behave themselves this time.
 * Continued a thread at Talk:Russians, which User:MaIl89 started
 * Used very similar spelling/grammatical errors to previous incarnations.
 * Additionally, the following SSP cases are relevent:
 * Suspected sock puppets/M.V.E.i. (3rd)
 * Suspected sock puppets/M.V.E.i. (2nd)
 * Suspected sock puppets/M.V.E.i.
 * The user is rather blatant about dodging the ban; and they show no desire to abide by its terms, they have used almost all prior accounts to continue the tendentious editing of the first account. Besides confirming that these are all indeed the banned user; could a checkuser also be used to root out any sleeper account.  This is a recidivist sockpuppetteer, and I there is quite a good chance that there are more of his account out there.  Thanks!  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  18:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to add to this, user:SharpNail was indef blocked earlier today as a sockpuppet. Papa November (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, another old sock account is Papa November (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * SharpNail and Mall89 are the same,  is a new account created by Mall89.  M.V.E.i and No Free Nickname are too stale to check. Thatcher 02:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * blocked; MaIl89 and M.V.E.i are clearly the same based on editing patterns, even if too stale to check against each other. Thus if Ytytrt=MaIl89 and MaIl89=M.V.E.i (per duck test, then Ytytrt=M.V.E.i as far as I am concerned.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  05:23, 20 June 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.''