Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mcdonaldsfreak82

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

Mcdonaldsfreak82
For a full description, please see below

Possible masters:


 * pushing Willard Scott story
 * pushing Terry Teene story

Socks:


 * Code letter: G, please see below


 * Supporting evidence:

I am having an issue with the article. There has been an ongoing editing cold war with this article over who created the stupid clown. I have been keeping it neutral but my current problem is on the talk page. There has been POV pushing using sock puppets to establish a consensus for one side or or the other, or it could be an attempt to create general disruption of the page. These socks have editing histories that only deal with this page and only last a couple of days. I do not know how to go about resolving this and require assistance in determining who is doing this. --Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 01:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am going to go ahead and list your case for you, but would you mind providing a bit more information via diff's to better link the users to one another. Tiptoety  talk 23:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that these contribs appear randomly for a week or so then make no more comments, then two days later another newly registered user shows up and make similar comments elsewhere in the talk page. What do you want me to give you exactly, as the history shows the edits they made and their comments are all over the talk page. These individuals are trying to establish consensus on the talk page in order to justify changes to the article that support their POV. --Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 01:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What I am looking for are diff's linking relevant edits, its just to make it easier for the checkuser. Tiptoety  talk 01:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As the clerks have pointed out, I think we need a little more evidence before we can accept this case. Let's not de-list it yet, though, until Jeremy has had a chance to address it - A l is o n  ❤ 06:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I have really busy lately, but will try to get to it on Monday 7/28, my next day off. Do you want me to give you the diffs from their last edits or all of their edits? --Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 06:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That'll be just fine. Try to get as much evidence together that you reasonably can - you don't have to got into the vast depths, though - A l is o n  ❤ 07:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is just a drive by comment but they appear to be pretty obvious socks, see below
 * There average edit count is either about 4 or about 20
 * They are all SPA's related to Ronald McDonald
 * They all hold that Willard Scot created Ronald McDonald.
 * Ihjmwt2petwbgwh
 * Randyga7755
 * NM76UU
 * Rm1963
 * Knimper
 * Max33well44
 * Mcdonaldsfreak82
 * Randyga7755\
 * Mcmasterofwiki
 * They back each other up in arguments
 * Rm1963: "Exactly right Knimper"
 * Mcmasterofwiki: "Your exactly right 67.49.8.228."
 * They all have a habit of making several comments on a talk page in a single edit
 * Max33well44 posts 3 comments with one edit
 * Mcmasterofwiki responds twice with one edit
 * Many cite personal knowledge
 * Mcdonaldsfreak82: "I was just told that Willard Scott created the first costume"
 * Mcmasterofwiki: "My grandfather saw the old clipping in the 60's and told me the whole story"
 * 67.49.8.228: "It was the Valley News and Green Sheet, some time in 1962,3, or 4. I think. It was a single captioned photograph, I do not know the author, or the page number but it was in the lower right of the front page of a section and was printed on green paper."
 * Ufoundme2: "I have talked to Willard in the past and he told me he created the character"
 * There is more but that should be enough. - Icewedge (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * - ok, that's more than enough evidence to take this case. Thanks, Icewedge, for providing the details! To the original poster; a lot of work has to go into each checkuser case behind the scenes and checkusers are extremely busy. When a case is presented, we simply don't have the bandwidth to dig through the entire edit history and article history, etc, to determine if a case is to be accepted. This is the primary responsibility of the person filing the case. It's not that we're being lazy or awkward - it's more that we're extremely busy and also have to remain detached from each case. Futhermore, there's nobody better to be able to provide the background evidence than the person most familiar with the issues - A l is o n  ❤ 07:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And the following accounts are ✅ as being socks of the one editor:




 * - This guy has been at this for quite some time, it would seem. (and don't worry - most people have issues filing c/u requests. It's not easy! :) ) - A l is o n  ❤ 08:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And the above mentioned IP address is ❌ - A l is o n  ❤ 08:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * All indef blocked. Tiptoety  talk 00:19, 29 July 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.''