Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/NoToFrauds

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

and his (possibly) many alter-egos & and  and his/their respective possible alter-egos
Hello, I was recommended to stop by here by. Here is the current list of sockpuppets that are worth checking in on. There may be 2 or possibly 3 individual users here, each with their respective sockpuppets. It's hard to distinguish the them. They are using their sockpuppets to boost concensus in voting and discussions, and to avoid WP:3RR, also to avoid other punishment for other policy violations such as WP:PA, revealing personal identity details of rival disputants on talk pages, and others (below):


 * -- first edit: 01:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * -- first edit: 01:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * -- first edit: 00:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * -- first edit: 23:23, 24 October 2002 (UTC)
 * -- first edit: 15:33, 14 October 2004 (UTC)
 * -- first edit: 03:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * -- first edit: 05:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

This username may be involved with either of the two, but unlikely..
 * (possibly?) -- first edit: 15:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. For more info see bottom of my talk page. Hamsacharya dan 19:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The mentioned users have been building up false discussions on a number of pages; check the contibs of the newer accounts. The most blatant example is Talk:Mahavatar Babaji.


 * User:82.15.17.152 (who is currently serving a 24-hour block for blanking warnings on his talk) has signed his contributions as User:NoToFrauds and User:No to Nutss (a non-existent user, ), User:Priyanath (, check the right of the sig), and has actually flip-flopped the signature of a comment . ~ PseudoSudo 22:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Priyanath is just Priyanath, and nobody else. I noticed that NTF added my name to the right of his signature where you point out above, but the signature and posting was his. (for a time, I was ignorantly typing 'Priyanath' after the four tildes - it looks like NTF cleverly imitated my mistake). I think that someone needs to look at all sides of these revert wars, sockpuppetry, and personal attacks. It shows no sign of letting up.Priyanath 07:46, 20 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 below, in a new section.''
 * Confirmed for both. TroyVaughn/NoToFrauds/82.15.17.152 are all the same editor. Adityanath/Baba Louis/Chai Walla are also the same editor as each, though not the same as ToryVaughn etc. Note, Adityanath claims that other editors were simply working at the same place, and using his/her computer,etc. Jayjg (talk) 05:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I would like an independent review of this. Yes, the three of us were travelling together and sharing a laptop from hotel and cybercafe. However, we are now in separate locations and this should be verifiable, as should the fact of our changing location while travelling. I could do it myself using just nslookup and whois, but we had no reason to keep a list of our IP addresses as we travelled. &mdash;Adityanath 17:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg - thank you very much for bringing this out into the open finally. I have been hounded ceaselessly by these two for weeks.  I have documented a long list of their violations on my talk page, not the least of which is sockpuppeting.  I know I am biased in asking this, since I have been the primary disputant with them, but pending a full investigation, and based on their long list of offences, I would like to nominate them for banning from Wikipedia.  Please tell me if I need to take further action independently, such as petitioning an arbitration committee??  Thanks. Hamsacharya dan 19:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

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

and
- I believe they are the same user. Please confirm. Thanks.Gator (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * We do not routinely confirm user's IP addresses without specific examples of policy violations. Please check the expanded header on this page, and specify policy violations that justify a check. Essjay  Talk •  Contact 23:40, 23 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 below, in a new section.''

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

/ /
incorrectly identified us as sockpuppets. This is understandable as we were travelling together and connecting from the same hotels and cybercafe. We have now returned to our own homes and it should be easy to verify that we are not sockpuppets. Please actually check the data and clear my name. &mdash;Adityanath 20:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Enough. The constant complaining about this in an attempt to game the system has become disruptive. Either file a Request for Arbitration or drop it. Next time I see anything about this coming from your account, I'm blocking you for disruption. Essjay  Talk •  Contact 23:37, 23 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 below, in a new section.''

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

and
- I believe they are the same user. Please confirm. Thanks.Gator (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * We do not routinely confirm user's IP addresses without specific examples of policy violations. Please check the expanded header on this page, and specify policy violations that justify a check. Essjay  Talk •  Contact 23:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The policy violation is that NoToFrauds had been blocked and it is believed that he was using the IP to evade the block. Please confirm. Thanks.Gator (talk)


 * Inconclusive. Mackensen (talk) 17:40, 24 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 below, in a new section.''