Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/NuclearUmpf

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

I Write Stuff

 * mostly for account creations if that's possible. --DHeyward (talk) 05:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * mostly for account creations if that's possible. --DHeyward (talk) 05:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * mostly for account creations if that's possible. --DHeyward (talk) 05:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * mostly for account creations if that's possible. --DHeyward (talk) 05:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Code letter: B
 * couldn't find the case, but banned already according to Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds. -- lucasbfr  talk 18:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the suspected pupppet is, most recently banned puppet is , and the pupppet master is . - Merzbow (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

was community banned, then came back as and was then banned by ArbCom, and recently came back as  and was banned after admitting the puppetry, on 5/13. As part of his admission he promise to continue to create new accounts. Lo and behind, on 5/15, two days later, was create, and is an obvious sock. He creates and edits article loosely related to Mexican socialism (and Latin American drug lords, although Grimlight avoids this topic), and in exactly the same way, and has even created an article based directly off of notes in an IWS Sandbox.


 * Creates Coalition of Workers, Peasants, and Students of the Isthmus, which is based directly on notes here: User:I_Write_Stuff/COCEI.
 * See this new Grimlight article: Revolutionary Committee of Puerto Rico  Compare the referencing naming convention, perfectly formed structure and attention to detail like ISBN numbers to this article created by IWS: Movement of National Liberation.
 * Likes to tag talk pages with the "WikiProject Mexico template": and, compared to  and.

Please compare CU information to, as his earlier accounts are almost certainly stale. - Merzbow (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I admit to being I Write Stuff, and SevenOfDiamonds, and will continue to protest the absurd evidence that lead Arbcom to state I am Nuclearumpf. I will also continue to write articles as I see fit. I wrote another today: Narciso Bassols. At what point do you realize that you are hurting the project by attempting to vilify someone who has written now over 40 articles? I do not mind being banned. I have maintained I will continue to make accounts until my article count reaches 100, or until Sessels list is complete, whichever comes first. Then I will request from Arbcom that the evidence be weighed to show I am not the disruptive character I was accused of being in the first place. For God's sake, they were banned for stating they will disrupt the project and as much as you attempt to tie me to other conveniently named sockpuppets, all named in my honor apparently, you have no proof of any such disruption other then my ideals on state terrorism of the united states. I am starting to think Merzbow that its convenient that everyone you oppose has an army of attack sockpuppets. In the future, feel free to ask. I will admit to who I am. --Grimlight (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * . Thatcher 00:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

NuclearUmpf‎



 * Code letter: B

Arbcom ruling: Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults

Overview:

Same editing styles, same pages frequented, same arguement style on WP:ANI which he was harshly reprimand for in the arbitration decision.

History:

User:Zer0faults stated that he was going to close down one account on September 15th, User:Zer0faults because of the Arbcom ruling Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults/Proposed decision which the Arbcoms ruled against him on several points.

On September 18th User:NuclearUmpf was created.

Additional information:

If necessary I can email extensive evidence to any person reviewing this case. Please message me on my talk page, or comment here to request this extensive and exhastive evidence. I would not have initiated this checkuser if I was not 100% sure, because of my past involvement with User:Zer0faults.

I am almost 100% certain based on his behavior in this case, as soon as you close down NuclearUmpf‎, he will simply open yet another user account. Travb (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:SOCK: "There's no specific policy against it, but it's generally considered uncool unless you have a good reason," and " ... multiple usernames are really only a problem if they are used as a method of troublemaking of some sort. For example, to generate an appearance of consensus, or to vote more than once, or to hide from public scrutiny." The reason for discouraging sock puppets is to prevent abuses such as a person voting more than once in a poll, or using multiple accounts to circumvent Wikipedia policies or cause disruption. Some people feel that second accounts should not be used at all; others feel it is harmless if the accounts are behaving acceptably. Multiple accounts may have legitimate uses, but you must refrain from using them in any way prohibited to sock puppets, and from using one account to support the position of another, the standard definition of sock puppetry. If someone uses multiple accounts, it is recommended that he or she provide links between the accounts, so it is easy to determine that they are shared by one individual.

You can have someone from Arbcom contact me for any questions. Unless any of that is proven I have nothing more to say. Travb cannot initiate Checkusers because he simply has a gut feeling. --NuclearUmpf 15:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Generally a user may abandon one account and open another without having to disclose this fact. However in this case Zer0faults has been placed on probation, and if he opens a new account this must be disclosed to the arbitration committee and logged at Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults so that the probation can be enforced if neccessary. Otherwise the name change is just a way to avoid the arbitration remedies. Thatcher131 15:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You can also see Travb plotting with users I have disputes with here oddly he then comments on that AfD related GeoSwan. Then goes on to call me a troll in the DrV  Note:zer0faults accoutn has not been used since this account was activated unless to reply to admins. Also I have not broken any Arbcom ruling either and specifically state I would not under my new name. You can review the Arbcom decision then review my edit log. I would also ask someone stop Travb from wikistalking my edits please. You can see from my userpage also and zer0faults userpage that I just want to edit, but people following me around and contacting everyone off wiki that I have a dispute with it quite annoying and bordering on harrassment. --NuclearUmpf 15:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I didnt know it had to be logged, feel free to put it. I wanted to avoid people like Travb following me around as he did before. Is there anyway I can have it logged privatly and start yet another username so he cannot continue to wikistalk me and message everyone I dispute with?
 * here is Travb attempting to contact another user I had a dispute with off wiki This is why I left the zer0faults name behind, this constant harrassment. --NuclearUmpf 15:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll close this as no check needed, and I'll list your new name on the arbitration case. I'm making no judgements on either your or Travb's behavior right now, just following up on this particular request. Thatcher131 16:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thatcher131, if in fact you are a checkuser admin, I will email you the evidence if necessary. Based on User:NuclearUmpf/User:zer0faults past behavior, I don't want him to know specically what he is doing to allow other users to know it is him, because based on his attitude toward the arbcom, I fear as soon as you reveal he is a sockpuppet, he will simply open another account to avoid the Arbcom ruling. I am not basing this on a hunch, that is all I can or will say in the matter.  I can email you the evidence if necessary if you are in fact a checkuser. If needed, I will also e-mail it to the 6 admins who decided the Arbcom if necessary. Again as I mentioned to: User talk:Thatcher131, User:NuclearUmpf/User:Zer0faults always has to have the last word, so unless you respond to me here, or someone else comments here, I won't respond, otherwise this wikipage will get really big. Travb (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not a checkuser, just a clerk. More importantly, checkuser is for determining if two users are the same person.  Checkuser is not for investigating or mediating disputes.  Since he has admitted to previously being Zer0faults, there is nothing else to check so this case is closed.  If you believe he has violated his probation, the place to report it is arbitration enforcement or the administrator's noticeboard. Thatcher131 17:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry to get you involved in this dispute. I appreciate the advice, I didn't know he admitted to being Zer0faults, my apologies. Good luck man, I am glad someone is a clerk for this page, because I don't think I would like to mediate disputes between ornery wikiusers like myself. Take care. Travb (talk) 17:23, 3 October 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.''