Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Random account 39949472

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

Jessica Liao




I'd first like to apologize for my complacency insofar as not recognizing Jessica's previous ban and use of sock-puppets previously. I would also like to acknowledge that I am not impartial in this matter, based on the fact that I had class with her during High School. (I also apologize in advance to admins for possible errors in this request)
 * Code letter: F

I first recognized some IP address editing the same topic she edited and commented on her talk page, she acknowledged her identity (specifically she referred to my first name which I had not yet disclosed to her) here. She then also posted on my talk page that she was also making edits under a different IP here. So now we get to RainingmySoul -- its not absolutely clear that this is Jessica but Soul created [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=E.M._Baker_Elementary_School&diff=cur&oldid=113672040 E.M. Baker Elem. Article here], JFK Elem here, and Saddle Rock here all of which are elementary schools -- only later was the list updated by the 209. account here. Soul had relatively few edits up until March 7th where the user made several new articles about local great neck schools.

There are many examples of the user having the same edits on multiple accounts/IPs but the clearest is the entire history of Special education. In these 2 strings of edits Jessica tries to form 'consensus' through using multiple IP's. Starting with this edit, the revert, then the use of another IP here. There is another set of entries which is very strange as well. First 209 starts a new topic for discussion here then strangely 69. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Special_education&diff=next&oldid=112888491 backs 209. up]... but they made a large mistake -- note the signature of that last link -- its the wrong talk page. changing the link. In the meantime Soul steps in giving the same opinion as 209 and 69 here and then starts to have the same position as the IPs. Later 69. comes in to support Soul here.

Along with similar edits the accounts all share very similar humor and similar use of userboxes 209.x here, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:69.117.20.128&diff=114210795&oldid=110242673 69. here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:207.156.197.1&diff=prev&oldid=115303421 207. here]. Jessica's original userboxes is found here. Jess's userbox is very very similar to the userbox of 209. here.

Even today IP 209. has tried to delete the 'Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jessica Liao' category off of the two users: from a suspected user here as well as here.

209. has been blocked for violations of the 3RR here and has deleted information off the Admin notice board see here and I asked for a block to be overturned here -- but I did so to follow proper block procedure.

I'm sorry this is entirely so long, but I felt the need to clearly layout the links to the IPs and Username that I believe are being used as sockpuppets. After asking an admin's opinion I respect and he directed me here. I hope everything here is in order and if it is not please notify me on how I can include better/more material or further directions, thanks. MrMacMan 07:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Per F, could you provide the diff of the community ban against ? Looking through her block log, it appears Jessica is not an indefinitely blocked user, so this criteria may not apply.  Nish kid 64  20:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the ban her use of sock-puppets Oahc, Evets, Kyla, Oh behaVa and Xtremeruna21. Since Jessica has a history of using sock-puppets and has told me she is using 2 of the IP accounts on her own behalf I felt it should be reported. MrMacMan 21:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * . Duck test. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you explain how the Duck test applies? The article doesn't specifically mention how this would be used on wikipedia. Moreover she acknowledged her identity and gave my first name correctly prior to me posting it online. I don't understand how she could have found my name unless she was Jessica Liao. Then she later also revealed she used another IP address to make edits as well. All of the users have made topics on the same articles, when one account isn't editing an article another has the same views to backup the other identities. If there is anyway I can show the necessity for this checkuser I would be glad for another comment to help this process be correct. MrMacMan 21:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What you've done is shown it unnecessary; you have enough evidence without a checkuser. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So I guess... is there a next step or do I have to ask for a block/'some action' somewhere else? (I guess I don't know what exactly 'unnecessary' means in terms of a checkuser -- if it means that I've proven it otherwise or it means that I've not followed some procedure and it can't be done.) But I hope that it's my latter thought. Thanks. MrMacMan 21:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I just told you exactly what "unnecessary" means: you have enough evidence wihtout a checkuser. Am I missing some subtlety here? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm really... I'm just really dense... if I have enough evidence... does that mean the sockpuppet is going to be blocked? MrMacMan 23:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not by me; see above: In most cases, any block or other action based on the outcome will not be taken by the checkuser-people or the clerks. You'll need to hunt down an uninvolved admin to help you out with this. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Jessica Liao




WP:RFI report from, who claims to be Jessica's cousin, reporting Jessica using multiple accounts (see RFI if the full details are needed). A lot of them do follow the same pattern of requesting talk pages to be deleted. If they stopped editing then I'd have probably left it, but some recent edits are coming out of some of the accounts, so I think it's worth checking this report out. Petros471 11:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

✅. Does appear to be the same user, though something smells a bit fishy here. Essjay (  Talk  •  Connect  )  08:39, 14 June 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.''