Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pats2001

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

Pats2001



 * Code letter:G
 * Code letter:G
 * Code letter:G
 * Code letter:G
 * Code letter:G
 * Code letter:G
 * Code letter:G
 * Code letter:G
 * Code letter:G
 * Code letter:G
 * Code letter:G

All of these users have an edit history that seems to be related exclusively to the Dane Rauschenberg article (or to Fiddy2, the fundraiser he created), which have been involved in several 3RR issues, if they are indeed sockpuppets. It's unclear who the puppet master is, as none of them have more than two or three dozen edits. On given days, two or more of these IDs will be active, and then all of them will be quiet for awhile, only to see some of these pop up again, sometimes taking different sides of the debate. I know this request is strange, but I've never seen so many user exclusively dedicated to articles related to one person. Alansohn 00:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you have some diffs showing some possible 3RR violation, don't hesitate to change this case into a E code case. -- lucasbfr talk 11:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's unbelievably difficult to interpret what's happening here. This could be two groups of socks acting at cross purposes with each other, one group of socks playing a very elaborate game of editing, reverting and deleting text from differing "factions" or it could be separate people. The one thing in common that each of these IDs has in common is a small number of edits, with almost 100% being to Dane Rauschenberg or related articles, with more than one chipping in on this AfD. Alansohn 16:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps http://tools.wikimedia.org/~eagle/socks/Pats2001.1.html will help you Alasohn, to help you sift through. (This makes no assertion on its own, but is merely a tool to help analyze a bit.) ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 21:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

- Why not, if they are disruptive, just block on behaviour? What is the CU check going to give you that you don't already have? ++Lar: t/c 22:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Given this relates directly to an AfD, I have chosen to run the check in this instance. There are four groups here, all of which are unrelated to each other. Obviously the two users that are in the "unrelated" group are unrelated to each other. --Deskana (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There is the possibility that there are 11 different users who all have a massively coincidental joint obsession about Dane Rauschenberg and have therefore decided to edit exclusively his and other related articles. If this is all one person, I would agree that the behavior is disruptive and would justify a block, but without a checkuser, there's no way to exclude the possible presence of independent actors. Alansohn 23:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * DocDetroit = TheGoldenBoys = Bella de Ball = Mr.DaneGer
 * MrPreston = Parrson
 * Revertedlesbo = Arric = Pats2001 = mrtotemfrog
 * Sterlingjohnson, Xcstar
 * Revertedlesbo = Arric = Pats2001 = mrtotemfrog
 * Sterlingjohnson, Xcstar
 * Sterlingjohnson, Xcstar

Blocked


User(s) blocked. - A l is o n  ❤ 00:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've blocked and  as socks of Pats2001, but Arric's behavior is sufficiently different from those three to make me hestitate on him. Picaroon (t) 01:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And Pats2001, too. But I'd still like opinions on Arric. Picaroon (t) 01:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Arric looks fine to me, from the contribs - A l is o n  ❤ 01:18, 7 November 2007 (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.''