Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pro-Lick

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

Checkuser error resolution

 * My actual username:
 * Per a recommendation on the mailing list, I'm asking this question here. This  ID has been created specifically for posting here.  If that's actually a problem, go ahead and block, but please provide an answer about the correct way to proceed.--AdelaideCranwell 17:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * To clarify, how does one resolve errors in checkuser results? Namely, none of these are me:  Requests for CheckUser.--AdelaideCranwell 20:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Declined. Mackensen (talk) 05:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Pro Lick


These are all possible sockpuppets of, who was earlier confirmed as the same user as , among others. They are bascially fixated on the same couple of edits in Abortion and Partial-birth abortion, and just keep reverting without discussion. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Confirmed
 * Confirmed
 * Confirmed
 * Confirmed
 * Confirmed
 * Confirmed
 * Confirmed
 * Confirmed

Also, all of the following are confirmed:



Now, just need to block them all and tag them. Essjay Talk •  Contact 07:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

and
As mentioned at AN/I this section,, having caused a lot of trouble at the abortion article, is now using sockpuppets. An earlier checkuser revealed that, , and were the same user as Pro-Lick. There was also technical evidence linking them to and.

At the time of the earlier request, had not edited, and so was not included in the check, but from the edits, and even the name, it was obviously the same person.

Pro-Lick recently linked to his blog. There, he calls on people to come to Wikipedia and change the Abortion definition to things like "Abortion liberates the uterus" and "Abortion is fertilization for flowers." Then, a new editor appeared and began to make those edits. And there was a similar edit from. An investigation would be appreciated. Many thanks. AnnH ♫ 01:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Confirm Curettage, definately a HS/Pro-Lick sock.
 * As for Annalina, if it smells like HS/PL it probably is, but the checkuser is inconclusive. There is, however, a vandal sock farm coming off that IP, mixed in with some legitimate editing. Essjay  Talk •  Contact 05:55, 3 April 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.''

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

and
turned up at the Abortion article a few weeks ago, and began to edit war, going grossly over three reverts per day. He arrived just after had been indefinitely blocked, and may be the same user, as he showed considerable familiarity with Wikipedia (adding categories, etc.), and they made the same arguments, and had the same editing pattern, and the same habit of deleting other people's comments from their talk page. (If so, there is no problem, as Halliburton Shill was banned for his user name, and is presumably free to return under a new identity.) Pro-Lick has been blocked a few times for 3RR, and has also carried out violations for which he was not reported.

Just after Pro-Lick's latest block (48 hours) appeared at the abortion article, and began to revert to Pro-Lick's version, also showing considerable familiarity with Wikipedia. The only other editor who seems to support and revert to these versions is, who is an established user, though one who edit wars, engages in personal attacks, deletes comments from his talk page, and has been blocked several times. Alienus is probably not connected to this user / these users. Thank you. AnnH ♫ 09:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Confirmed: Pro-Lick is Halliburton Shill, and, additionally (as shown below) are AbortMe, Cry Me a Shill, and Vote Machine Malfunction.  Essjay  Talk •  Contact 16:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

RFCU on user: a) to compare against and b to check against 3RR violation on Abortion as users first edits were very controversial and possibly bad-faith.  &rArr;    SWAT Jester     Ready    Aim    Fire!  15:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed:, , and  are the same user. Essjay Talk •  Contact 16:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Lick



 * User:Ban.wma

Earlier today it was confirmed that User:Pro-Lick, User:Halliburton Shill, User:AbortMe, User:Cry Me a Shill, and User:Vote Machine Malfunction were all the same user. Blocks were issued all around for the excessive block evesion performed using most of these, and the continued reverting, way over 3RR, by the collective socks. Another obvious sock then popped up, User:Undermined. I'm not too concerned about a check of User:Undermined, as it was so obviously a quickly registered evasion sock. Then the users User:Ban.wma and User:Alienus made the exact same revert again. Looking at Ban.wma's edit history, it was quickly apparent that he had first edited about 24 hours after Halliburton Shill was given his user-name block. And less than an hour after Ban.wma's first edit, he dived head-first into the discussions over Halliburton Shill's situation, calling for the unblocking of Shill. Very suspicious behavious for a new account. So today, after Ban.wma contributed to the chain of reverts at abortion, I blocked him as another in the above sequence of sock puppets. He protested on his user page, and I said I would bring the issue here to once and for all determine if he is yet another in the sock parade, or a independant editor caught up in the chaos.

As for User:Alienus, a check there would be nice, just to once and for all establish that he is not a part of the sock parade. I lean toward him not being part of it, but if he is, being a more established user, then he is likely the actual main account. But as I don't really have much evidence beyond the reverts, I understand if a check of him is declined. - TexasAndroid 00:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ban.wma and Undermined are the same person. I don't see any evidence of a connection to Alienus in the checks of Ban.wma and Undetermined; I'm not comfortable running a check specifically on a long term contributor without a lot of evidence suggesting a link. Essjay  Talk •  Contact 06:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Does that mean that User:Ban.wma and User:Undermined are not the same as Pro-Lick etc? As far as I know, Pro-Lick's block was extended when Undermined appeared on the scene, as Undermined was thought to be a sock created by him especially for the purpose of block evasion. (Perhaps not terribly unfair, as he certainly did create User:AbortMe, User:Cry Me a Shill, and User:Vote Machine Malfunction for that purpose, even if he's innocent in the case of Undermined.) Also, his block was extended further yesterday when User:Curettage appeared. No request was made for a user check on User:Curettage (I wasn't the admin who extended the block), but it would seem certain that Curettage is connected to Ban.wma and Undermined, or to Pro-Lick and his sockpuppets, or to both. Did the name Curettage show up when you checked Ban.wma? Thanks. AnnH ♫ 07:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The technical evidence strongly suggests a connection between Undermined and the other Halliburton Shill socks. Curettege is not a name that I noticed. Essjay  Talk •  Contact 07:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Curettege first edited after I submitted this request. Like Undermined, he was blocked as an obvious member of the sock parade.  Anyway, I have now restored the block on Ban.wma, as a sock being used to once again evade Shill/Pro-Lick's 3RR block.  That was the key.  As to Alienus, as I said in the submission, I understand fully you declining to check him given the lack of evidence.  And I don't really think he's the same person,  I just have a bit of doubt.  Very well.  - TexasAndroid 12:40, 31 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.''