Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Markanthony101

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

Markanthony101



 * Code letter: G
 * Supporting evidence:
 * SSP case involving Mickylynch101 and Markanthony101, where both were blocked indefinitely
 * Village Pump discussion where Markanthony102 disputes the SSP case above, and claims Mickylynch101 is not him
 * SSP case involving Mickylynch101 and Markanthony101, where both were blocked indefinitely
 * Village Pump discussion where Markanthony102 disputes the SSP case above, and claims Mickylynch101 is not him

Mickylynch101 was created on January 25th. His first contribution was to his userpage, saying that "I think around 500,000 of wikipedia's articles can be deleted, and I aim to nominate many rubbish and nonsense articles for deletion as soon as I get around to it." However, it appears he was experienced with Wikipedia:
 * Second ever edit: adding a smile to SchuminWeb's talk page He also noted about SchuminWeb "running about on the Recent Changes".
 * His third edit was to call SchuminWeb a "loser with no life", which seems to indicate he's had problems with him in the past.

He then began to tag articles for speedy deletion. Under criteria A7 (no indication of importance or significance): Under other criteria:
 * List of the Simpsons chalkboard gags
 * Valley Mall
 * White Flint Mall
 * Gentex, tagged as spam
 * Ringebu Station, as nonsense

After all of his speedy tags were declined, he started to personally attack/insult other editors:
 * "Removed the insult. Reinserted the threat."
 * "Someone has a problem with basic reading and writing"
 * "I think you are a snivelling moron unworthy to be a member of an encyclopedia project"
 * "Your (sic) a moron"
 * "Never delete tags placed on articles by me. You are an imbecile"
 * "Never delete tags placed on your articles. Imbecile."

As a result from the comments above, he was blocked for 31 hours for harassment.

Markanthony101 was created on January 27th. Almost immediately, he began to tag pages for deletion, stating that they "read like an advertisement" or that there was "absolutely no reason why this should remain on an encyclopedia. Truly awful article.".

Around that time, I noticed a message on SchuminWeb's talk page (link is ex post facto), noticing a link between the articles Mickylynch101 and Markanthony101 had tagged: SchuminWeb had created/edited those pages. After reading that, I filed the SSP case above. As a result, Mickylynch101 and Markanthony101 were blocked as socks of each other.

Now, Markanthony102 has come to the Village Pump, saying the case wasn't handled correctly. He also posted a message on Rlevse's talk page (the person who closed the SSP report), saying he wasn't Mickylynch101, and calling Rlevse "power mad". He also cited why he isn't Mickylynch101 unblock request. However, Markanthony102 is now claiming admin abuse on three of the deletion discussions proposed by Markanthony101.

I request that the CheckUsers take a look at this, to see if technical evidence backs up Markanthony's claims that he is not a sock. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record I was extremely angry at the way it was handles. Two users resulted in wrongly labeling me a sock of another user who I had not heard of. My anger is inexcusable, but I'm sure you can understand why I felt the way I did (and still do) I still maintain several admins were abusing their powers in the case, as the evidence will prove. Markanthony102 (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

And just for clarification, I am Markanthony101, but was forced to make this account to defend myself after my unblock requests were rejected and my userpage 'protected'. Markanthony102 (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: All diffs above in the personal attacks and speedy tag sections are from User:Mickylynch101. Markanthony101 has not risen to that level of incivility, and I think the lesser amount of incivility that does exist on his part can be excused by the stress of being wrongfully accused, if he is in fact a different person. And the accusations of admin abuse are understandable given that the speedy closures (on the assumption of a bad faith nom) seem to follow directly from the assumption that the user is a sockpuppet, and there are certainly irregularities around the way the SSP case was handled (second account being created after user's block expired being taken as evidence that it's a block-evading sock, etc) —Random832 21:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I do think that any claim of sockpuppetry has to hinge on checkuser evidence at this point, since I've looked at the contributions of each user, and I have to say... well, in the words of an immortal poet: No quack. —Random832 21:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What is going on with this case? We've been waiting a week for the results. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 18:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I must admit, I too am growing impatient. I deliberately sat back for the last week hoping some members would apologise for their actions. Looks like that was a fools errand. Markanthony102 (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If the CU shows solid evidence they are not the same user, I'll apologize. Not that both MA101 and ML101 have had a total of three unblocks declined by other admins. I suggest the CU read their talk pages too. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 17:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the unblock requests in Mark101 were denied on very slim and shaky evidence, despite me providing reasonable evidence to the contrary. I have said it before, but there is no evidence linking me to Mickylynch101 and continuing to link me to his account is simply offensive. Markanthony102 (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ - that =  =  -  A l is o n  ❤ 06:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * all indef blocked. -- lucasbfr  talk 09:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think someone owes me an apology. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 10:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been using the Universities computers here, as well as the one at home. If the IP is the same as the UNI one that can be put down to that. In regards to User:Schuminweb, he is a campus villain on Trinity College as he blocked the college for a full year. Perhaps someone was targeting him, I cannot speak on his behalf. If someone could check the evidence and see the IP thats match, Its probably down to the one IP (Which begins as 134.) which is the IP for Trinity College Dublin) MA103 (talk) 13:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC) (And this account is obviously MA101 and 102)
 * Reported to WP:AIAV as returning indef-blocked user. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * - (Un)fortunately, I was also able to determine which computers you used behind the Trinners firewall and can state that the three editors above used the same ones on a regular basis - A l is o n  ❤ 15:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * All I can say is that you are wrong. I'll let you in on a little secret. I'm using an internet cafe, I have a computer at home when I go home at the weekends but not in college. But since you people are convinced there is always a massive conspiracy going on, I'm going to give you one. I will create an account at some stage in the near future, and follow the pattern that other geeks and losers have followed to become admins. (IE, not creating or making any articles, just interfering like some geeks have done with me for no reason) At the same time, using proxies I will create an army of Admins (Say six or seven) and I will use them all to my own ends; Eventually, with six or seven full time sockpuppet admins I will walk all over you insufferable geeks. I'll take your petty counter-productive policies by the balls and destroy every last one of them with that wonderful medium - common sense. I will inspire a whole new generation of contributors - not the kind who highlight every pathetic effort they make in articles (Usually one or two lines) but will be modest and will not highlight the articles I have contributed to. I will bring back the humble encyclopedist and put an end to this geekocracy which permeates and utterly destroys the very foundation of this wonderful thing (I truly love Wikipedia) In short, I will bring back the 'fun' in the wiki. I'll never forget how shabbily I've been treated in my time here. 62.231.34.211 (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the more I think of it, I have too much of a life to do all that. I think I'll just go and join wiki-truth. 62.231.34.211 (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Checkusers, can you check this IP for socks? I'm going to head over to AIAV and get it blocked. Thanks. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * - it's clear - A l is o n  ❤ 00:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Dang. Can you save the CheckUser data from the Markanthony and Mickylynch accounts, in case we need it in the future? Also, has been checked? Thanks for everything you've done here. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's another TCD proxy & there are no socks that I can see there. Don't worry about the checkuser data :) - A l is o n  ❤ 00:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. I tagged the IP with a suspected sock tag, and it appears all the loose ends have been tied up here... Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:53, 14 February 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.''